Sounds like a good idea. ;-) On 24 Mar 2015 2:30 PM, "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gavin, > > As we do cloud based multi-tenancy, almost everything we have in our value > proposition is special purpose (it is just a classifaction). It depends on > use within the domains of the customer. And we have movedl from the special > purpose folder to more appropriate places (ldap to framework, most to > hot-deploy) and have much more configurability. > > What we try to avoid as much as possible is to expose the base registers > (apps like ordermgr, partymgr, workeffort) to users, because these either > so overcrowded with clickables (partymgr) that they deliver the opposite of > a good user experience, or they are so basic in user functionality that > they aren't worth exposing (workeffort). > > For others we have our own additions/replacements. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Gavin Mabie <kwikst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Pierre > > > > I'm not sure where we're going with this discussion. My original input > was > > to suggest that OAuth2 might not fit into the "special purpose" category > > and that it should rather be considered a tool/utility. As it > transpires, > > there seems to be divergent opinions (at least between you and me) as to > > what "special purpose" in fact is. Frankly, this is a moot point with its > > relevance perhaps limited to how the project (Ofbiz) presents the system. > > The system is flexible enough for developers to place application > > components into folders as they wish. A developer might well decide to > > place manufacturing in the "special purpose" folder. Nothing wrong with > > that. > > > > However ,the theme that emerges from this and other discussions on the > > topic is that the "special purpose" folder is at times viewed as a folder > > for miscellaneous. Miscellaneous in this instance includes components > that > > are (a) not well supported in terms of committer contributions and (b) > > where there is a perceived better alternative in the open source market. > > My initial point was simply that we, from a project point of view, should > > have some clarity as to how we categorise components.There are references > > on the Ofbiz wiki to "special purpose" components as "process-or > > role-oriented > > < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Announcement+for+new+release+Apache+OFBiz+09.04.01 > > >". > > There is also reference to the requirement that "special purpose" > > components should not be interdependent > > < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies > > >. > > I agree with both points, but I must add that to use it for "all-else" > > would not be well-founded/well thought-through. > > > > More directly to some of your specific questions: > > > > > But what is your answer ( your value proposition of OFBiz), when a > > > potential user comes to you and says: 'I want OFBiz for my > manufacturing > > > setup and I don't want any excess'.? > > > > 1. Firstly,I would be elated that the customer "wants" Ofbiz in the first > > place. > > 2. Secondly, I would inquire as to why the customer only wants Ofbiz's > > manufacturing functionality? > > Responses to this question will undoubtedly be interesting - but its > > certainly an opportunity for up-selling the system as a whole. > > > > I don't define what the 'OFBiz Value Proposition' is. We all do that. And > > > what is it? What is yours? > > > > Shortly, OOTB Ofbiz's biggest value is that, as a business process > > management system, it provides an organisation with the software to > manage > > business functions through an integrated set of applications built on > > robust open source technologies. Just my opinion. > > > > Hope I wasn't too long-winded. > > > > Gavin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, Gavin, > > > > > > Starting a new thread. For the build up, see > > > > > > > > > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pf7lnzjwow4g4igj?q=passport+oauth2+order:date-forward > > > > > > Our current homepage states as the value proposition the following: > > > > > > Apache OFBiz™ is an open source product for the automation of > enterprise > > > processes that includes framework components and business applications > > for > > > ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), CRM (Customer Relationship > > Management), > > > E-Business / E-Commerce, SCM (Supply Chain Management), MRP > > (Manufacturing > > > Resource Planning), MMS/EAM (Maintenance Management System/Enterprise > > Asset > > > Management), POS (Point Of Sale). > > > > > > > > > That is the starting point of the value proposition, and it includes > most > > > applications (but not all in special purpose). The webpage also states: > > > > > > Use it out-of-the-box, customize it or use it as a framework to > implement > > > your most challenging business needs. > > > > > > > > > Meaning that it can be adjusted to be part of whatever your value > > > proposition is. > > > > > > Gavin, you asked what it would that value proposition is in the > > > hypothetical scenario of it being used in combination of everything > > coming > > > from third parties (see below). You should ask that the proponents of a > > > framework only solution. They are better at it, I surmise. > > > > > > But what is your answer ( your value proposition of OFBiz), when a > > > potential user comes to you and says: 'I want OFBiz for my > manufacturing > > > setup and I don't want any excess'.? > > > > > > And I would suspect it to be: great, that is feasible, but when you > > > download it, you get, +humanres + ecommerce (and more) > > > > > > And what is when someone comes to you and told you: 'I want to do > project > > > mgt, and I want it integrated with my fico and hr solutions. > > > > > > That answer would be: Excellent, but when you download it, you get > that + > > > accounting + humanres + manufacturing + 3rd party payment integration > > > solutions + 3rd party shipment integration solutions + ecommerce > (plus a > > > whole lot more) > > > > > > And then you'll probably say: but it can all be removed. So that > > potential > > > customer might, and probably will think: so if I don't want parts I > don't > > > need, I am going to pay through the nose to get it removed. And if I > > leave > > > it in, who knows what it will do. > > > > > > Yes there are parts that a good value proposition can't do without > > > (framework components, some components in applications). The rest are > > just > > > layer on top of the base of the cake. Options that makes the OFBiz > Value > > > Proposition the right one for any specific potential adopter. > > > > > > I don't define what the 'OFBiz Value Proposition' is. We all do that. > And > > > what is it? What is yours? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > > > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > > > Based Manufacturing, Professional > > > Services and Retail & Trade > > > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux < > > > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Le 22/03/2015 08:46, Gavin Mabie a écrit : > > > > > > > >> Hi Pierre > > > >> > > > >> If you use a 3rd party crm solution you wouldn't use the sfa > > > application. > > > >> > > > >>> If you use a 3rd party HRM solution, you wouldn't use humanres. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Following this line of thinking, let's consider this ridiculous > > > >> hypothetical scenario: > > > >> > > > >> - 3rd Party Accounting App; > > > >> - 3rd Party HR; > > > >> - 3rd Party SFA; > > > >> - 3rd Party Catalog Management; > > > >> - 3rd Party CMS; > > > >> - etc > > > >> > > > >> What would be Ofbiz's Value Proposition in this case? There are > core > > > >> applications that users expect to find in an ERP OOTB. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Good point Gavin :D > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
