David E Jones wrote:
On Jan 2, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
One major question is whether framework, on its own, should even be
runnable as an application. In my opinion, it is a library, not an app
and doesn't need to be operational on its own.
The more we discuss about this the more I get convinced that what we
(or at least me) intend for framework-only distribution should be
better named "OFBiz-core".
The OFBiz-core could consist of framework + party + content + commonext.
A distribution with these components set up is somewhat similar to
what I mean for a framework where developer can start building its
office automation application without the necessity to disable
anything but having all the power of the framework and the "core"
applications.
Your "at least me" comment is right on. Consider that what you want, at least
right now, is framework + party + content + commonext. Do you think that will be the same
for your next project? Do you think that this is the same for a majority of current and
prospective users of OFBiz?
I'd be willing to bet a good deal of money that this level of granularity is
not adequate to describe what you actually need/want, and that within each of
the parts you listed (framework, party, content, commonext) there are dozens or
hundreds of more specific things that you either want or don't want.
Now consider that with many thousands of such things that will be wanted or not wanted,
there are an incredible number of combinations of these things. Each combination is a
potential "core" packaging of OFBiz.
So, the question is what will be of most use to the largest number of users?
That question a good guiding thought, and because of the community nature of
this project it will of course be tempered by what contributors (committers or
not) actually decide is important to them.
Based on that, what should we change in how we're doing things?
-David
David,
Your view ties in very much with my recent experiences. My last project
just required framework + party, whereas my current project requires
framework + party + workeffort.
This has made me question whether it is practical to separate the
components as you will never know what combination you may need.
Could the problem be approached from a different angle - if unwanted
components are commented out and there are dependency issues, rather
than missing dependencies causing fatal startup errors at startup, how
about a warning being issued instead?
Cheers,
Chris
