When I sayd "at least me" I should have said "To implement the framework-only distribution end-user requirements here http://cwiki.apache.org/OFBIZ/framework-only-distribution.html"; We should agree or change what is written there and then work to implement it.
The framework-only work should of course generate two workproducts: - A standalone framework implementing the requirements - A set of additional components, each with its declared dependencies, that can be plugged in the framework-only installation. For my next project all I would like to do is to select the newly needed components and plug them in the framework-only. The sets of components framework+party+content+commonext should give us a basic configuration that, from the user POV should be similar to a CMS system but powered by OFBiz. This CMS configuration, IMO, should have the greatest number of potential users and, for this reason, should receive a greater contribution from a greater community. This configuration is also what we would need to run the OFBiz web site itself (if we are still interested in getting this up and running). Of course, as you say, there are some things in the selected components (framework, party, content, commonext) that are not required. These parts are, for sure, the ones that do not let the database to be even created because depends on other components. There are entities that should be moved away from party as the complete org.ofbiz.party.agreement and org.ofbiz.party.need sets, some other that should be extended in other components. So coming to your question: "what should we change in how we're doing things?" May be nothing. Just discuss/agree on the requirements for the framework-only and then start working on a branch. -Bruno 2010/1/2 David E Jones <d...@me.com>: > > 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 > >
