Let's try again (forwarding)...
(I copy the SMTP issue too in case it could be of help later)
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Returned mail: see transcript for details
Date : Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:34:06 +0100 (CET)
De : Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-dae...@smtp5.mailout.nfrance.com>
Pour : jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
The original message was received at Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:33:04 +0100 (CET)
from mail-green-smtp1.local [192.168.42.81]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<dev@ofbiz.apache.org>
(reason: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [185.20.84.5] blocked using
b.barracudacentral.org)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx1-he-de.apache.org.:
RCPT To:<dev@ofbiz.apache.org>
<<< 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [185.20.84.5] blocked using
b.barracudacentral.org
550 5.1.1 <dev@ofbiz.apache.org>... User unknown
DATA
<<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.mailout.nfrance.com
Arrival-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:33:04 +0100 (CET)
Final-Recipient: RFC822;dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; mx1-he-de.apache.org
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [185.20.84.5]
blocked using b.barracudacentral.org
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:34:06 +0100 (CET)
Re: What is OFBiz public API?.eml
Sujet :
Re: What is OFBiz public API?
De :
Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
Date :
05/01/2020 à 20:33
Pour :
dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Hi Mathieu,
Inline too...
Le 05/01/2020 à 18:32, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
Hello,
The arguments provided by Michael are very general and go beyond the
specific question of “component-load.xml” so I am opening a general
discussion about how to make OFBiz evolve smoothly by precising the
extent of its public API.
I urge other contributors to join this discussion which is crucial to
define our capability to work together as a community and my willing to
continue to participate.
Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> writes:
This project is not only about tech, it has a user base with serious
business running on base of OFBiz. This has always to be considered as
serious as good technical solutions should be considered. So we cannot
simply change things because single contributors like other technical
solutions better. We have to remain downwards compatible and manage
deprecation of features carefully.
First to clarify things, making evolutions in the framework is not about
developers changing arbitrary stuff, it is about structuring internals
in an understandeable way to enable correctness and the inclusion of new
features that satisfies evolving requirements.
Maybe you could clarify what you want to achieve. I have the feeling that you have a long term view and the “component-load.xml change” is only a
step, right?
Backwards compability only makes sense when something has a public API
otherwise every evolution is a breaking change. In OFBiz we lack a
proper specification of what is a feature provided by the framework
subject to backward compatibility and what is an implementation detail
that can evolve/disappear between version silently. We rely on an
informal consensus to distinguish between the two.
The fact that some mechanism appears to be used in production is a valid
argument against its removal only if that mechanism is part of the
public API, otherwise it is up to the client code to adapt.
I agree, that's why I asked Michael, in answer to his last email, if he could adapt his mechanism to "generate the resulting component-load.xml at
build time" using the new proposed mechanism. Of course it would not longer relies on the component-load.xml file (to be eventually removed) but on
the new mechanism.
My broad understanding of what is part of OFBiz public API is:
- the plugin mechanism
- the data model and data access (Entity Engine)
- The ability to call existing services and implement new ones (Service
Engine)
- the HTTP routing mechanism (Event Handler)
- the various configuration files location in “{component}/config”
directories.
I think there are more, but those are part of it.
[...]
If you read carefully what I previously wrote, there are several uses
for the applications component-load.xml:
* deactivation of unused component(s) by commenting out the
load-component entry (why load marketing resources if you don't use
the component at the moment)
* addition of components (yes, I've seen projects where this was not
done through the hot-deploy mechanism)
* ordering these components in the right load order
While you can argument that these might be "wrong" approaches, they
are technically valid and used in customer projects. Therefore we
cannot simply switch the mechanisms without a proper deprecation
period.
The general problem here is not to know if things are wrong or
technically valid, it is to know if something is part of the public API
or is an implementation detail. This determines how to handle an
evolution on that part. Something wrong but part of the public API like
using XML for code should be handled with care (deprecation, migration
guides), but something technically valid but inappropriate like patching
framework Java source code from a plugin should be ignored.
Fortunately I have never seen "patched framework Java source code from a
plugin" , but I agree about the idea.
In the case of ordering/enabling core components I consider it as an
implementation detail. If a component inside framework/applications is
effectively optional (like the marketing example you brought) it should
eventually be moved in the official plugins if we actually want to
provides the capability for users to disable it.
+1
However users should
not be entitled to think that they can freely desactivate/reorder/add
new components inside the framework/applications directory and that such
modifications will continue to work in a future release.
+1
The larger question is about knowing if the internal organisation of the
files inside the "framework/applications" directories with the exception
of the “config” directories is considered part of OFBiz public API or
not? What do people think?
It should not be but, as with other aspects in OFBiz, it's still a problem
For the record, Without the ability to safely refactor a large subset of
the codebase that have the status of “implementation details”, I will
simply stop contributing to OFBiz because I don't have time for endless
discussions with people blaming my community work because their
extensions happen to rely on unspecified behavior.
For the current case, the most important question is to know if both solutions could work at the same time, and if yes at which cost? Have you an idea
about that?
Thanks
Jacques
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.mailout.nfrance.com
Arrival-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:33:04 +0100 (CET)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; mx1-he-de.apache.org
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [185.20.84.5] blocked using b.barracudacentral.org
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:34:06 +0100 (CET)
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Mathieu,
Inline too...
Le 05/01/2020 à 18:32, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
Hello,
The arguments provided by Michael are very general and go beyond the
specific question of “component-load.xml” so I am opening a general
discussion about how to make OFBiz evolve smoothly by precising the
extent of its public API.
I urge other contributors to join this discussion which is crucial to
define our capability to work together as a community and my willing to
continue to participate.
Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> writes:
This project is not only about tech, it has a user base with serious
business running on base of OFBiz. This has always to be considered as
serious as good technical solutions should be considered. So we cannot
simply change things because single contributors like other technical
solutions better. We have to remain downwards compatible and manage
deprecation of features carefully.
First to clarify things, making evolutions in the framework is not about
developers changing arbitrary stuff, it is about structuring internals
in an understandeable way to enable correctness and the inclusion of new
features that satisfies evolving requirements.
Maybe you could clarify what you want to achieve. I have the feeling that you have a long term view and the “component-load.xml change” is only a
step, right?
Backwards compability only makes sense when something has a public API
otherwise every evolution is a breaking change. In OFBiz we lack a
proper specification of what is a feature provided by the framework
subject to backward compatibility and what is an implementation detail
that can evolve/disappear between version silently. We rely on an
informal consensus to distinguish between the two.
The fact that some mechanism appears to be used in production is a valid
argument against its removal only if that mechanism is part of the
public API, otherwise it is up to the client code to adapt.
I agree, that's why I asked Michael, in answer to his last email, if he could adapt his mechanism to "generate the resulting component-load.xml at
build time" using the new proposed mechanism. Of course it would not longer relies on the component-load.xml file (to be eventually removed) but on
the new mechanism.
My broad understanding of what is part of OFBiz public API is:
- the plugin mechanism
- the data model and data access (Entity Engine)
- The ability to call existing services and implement new ones (Service
Engine)
- the HTTP routing mechanism (Event Handler)
- the various configuration files location in “{component}/config”
directories.
I think there are more, but those are part of it.
[...]
If you read carefully what I previously wrote, there are several uses
for the applications component-load.xml:
* deactivation of unused component(s) by commenting out the
load-component entry (why load marketing resources if you don't use
the component at the moment)
* addition of components (yes, I've seen projects where this was not
done through the hot-deploy mechanism)
* ordering these components in the right load order
While you can argument that these might be "wrong" approaches, they
are technically valid and used in customer projects. Therefore we
cannot simply switch the mechanisms without a proper deprecation
period.
The general problem here is not to know if things are wrong or
technically valid, it is to know if something is part of the public API
or is an implementation detail. This determines how to handle an
evolution on that part. Something wrong but part of the public API like
using XML for code should be handled with care (deprecation, migration
guides), but something technically valid but inappropriate like patching
framework Java source code from a plugin should be ignored.
Fortunately I have never seen "patched framework Java source code from a
plugin" :), but I agree about the idea.
In the case of ordering/enabling core components I consider it as an
implementation detail. If a component inside framework/applications is
effectively optional (like the marketing example you brought) it should
eventually be moved in the official plugins if we actually want to
provides the capability for users to disable it.
+1
However users should
not be entitled to think that they can freely desactivate/reorder/add
new components inside the framework/applications directory and that such
modifications will continue to work in a future release.
+1
The larger question is about knowing if the internal organisation of the
files inside the "framework/applications" directories with the exception
of the “config” directories is considered part of OFBiz public API or
not? What do people think?
It should not be but, as with other aspects in OFBiz, it's still a problem
For the record, Without the ability to safely refactor a large subset of
the codebase that have the status of “implementation details”, I will
simply stop contributing to OFBiz because I don't have time for endless
discussions with people blaming my community work because their
extensions happen to rely on unspecified behavior.
For the current case, the most important question is to know if both solutions could work at the same time, and if yes at which cost? Have you an idea
about that?
Thanks
Jacques
--- End Message ---
