Adam Heath wrote: > Bruno Busco wrote: >> This is what I am also trying to do. >> Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party >> and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working. >> Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework. >> >> The framework, if you like how it is right now, can stay there but >> please let us create the possibility to remove applications according >> to their declared dependency tree. > > Here are more details to how I'd like to see this done. > > == > ./startofbiz.sh run > ./startofbiz.sh tests > ./startofbiz.sh install > == > > Instead of having hard-coded properties files in the start component, > which then reference hard-coded foo-containers.xml, each component > that is installed should be allowed to 'register' what it would like > each run-target to do. > > This would make switching between catalina and jetty simple, by just > swapping the components, with no editting of anything else. > > It would make writing an asterisk component simpler, as it has it's > own container that has to be run, but modifying the global configs is > difficult. > > It would allow for adding new startup targets, ones that ofbiz hasn't > thought of yet(would allow for some types of tests to be run, that > don't require entity/service/webapps to be configured, but do require > everything on the classpath).
ContactMech, TelecomNumber, PostalAddress are more generic than just for party. They should be in a shareable component. orders have a shipping destination, which has nothing to do with a party. Same for facilities. Party is more generic than the party component. Person/PartyGroup should be higher-level, while Party be lower-level. Our components are to large, imho. >
