Hello Jacques, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> writes:
> Le 05/01/2020 à 18:32, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit : >> >> 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? Yes I am/was working on the support of Jar distribution of OFBiz allowing to separate the source code and compilation process of the framework from the development of plugins. Basically it means transforming OFBiz from a project template into a library to improve the extensibility and reusability of both the framework and the plugins. Moreover this work is contributing to the effort of facilitating the deployment of OFBiz in production environments (in the continuity of ‘gradlew distTar’) by allowing the move of specific configuration out of the source tree and deploying every resources inside the Jar. I have described the rationale for this work in [1]. > [...] >> 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? Sure we can keep both options which is the easy way to settle a disagreement in the short term, I have allowed this in my last patch on OFBIZ-11296 [2] by supporting both <depends-on> and “component-load.xml” at the same time with a priority on “component-load.xml”. However to be able to continue the work of [1] it is important to remove the usage of “component-load.xml” inside the framework. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c2612f1e296b6ea15872185871d3a9d83d6a4afc6d2a76f7a336a126%40%3Cdev.ofbiz.apache.org%3E [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12989898/12989898_OFBIZ-11296_ignore-depends-on-when-a-component-load.xml-is-prese.patch -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
