Hi everyone, I spent some time reading through this thread again. I read the advantages of adopting moqui especially those mentioned by David Jones including: - smaller cleaner code base - simplified security - RESTful services - elastic search - easier learning curve for new comers - pure service layer instead of object/service hybrid - simpler order logic as the shopping cart resides in the database - there is probably more!
I also read some of the objections including backward incompatibility, huge effort, dependency risk and so on. But I didn't find anywhere in this thread the _value proposition_ for this move. In other words, what value are we providing if we give ofbiz+moque instead of moqui alone? Why would people choose the ofbiz+moqui solution and not just switch to moqui? I wasn't at the ApacheCon which started this thread so maybe I'm missing something? Taher Alkhateeb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 4:28:52 PM Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui. I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does not have an Apache license or a license that is known to be compatible with inclusion in an Apache product. At the moment, from my reading of the source that Jacques found, it would not be possible to release a Moqui-based framework under an Apache license. Moqui is in a no-man's land where your right to use it depends on what country you are in and unless you are the owner, it is not clear how your can redistribute it internationally. If we write a layer to go between Moqui and the OFBiz components to replace the framework, users would have to decide if they could legally run Moqui and would have to go get it on their own and install it separately. For the moment my preference would be to focus on getting the current framework into a separate sub-project, clean up the current dependency issues, document it and release it as a separate deliverable with an Apache license and its own roadmap and "marketing" plan. That is based on assertions from knowledgeable people in this project that it is valuable on its own for others who want to develop other sorts of business applications. Even if Moqui is a better framework technically, the Apache license would make the Apache OFBiz Framework a more desirable product for an organization wanting to invest in creating an application. Ron On 21/05/2015 4:49 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > Advance cast of -1 in case I miss the vote if it ever comes. > > Moqui is it's own eco-system. The only way to "replace the framework with > Moqui" is to rewrite the apps to be moqui apps. If that was done, what > does it have to do with OFBiz@Apache? We could rename the project to Apps > for Moqui and become application curators and essentially be a different > project. But what's the point of doing that here rather than over at > moqui? (wherever "at moqui" is) > > The work I think Adrian is suggesting is introducing Moqui as some sort of > hybrid into OFBiz until we can phase out the OFBiz framework completely. > To me that seems like a convoluted way to go instead of just rewriting the > apps. > > Regards > Scott > > On 27 April 2015 at 02:11, Jacopo Cappellato < > jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Adrian Crum < >> adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: >> >>> How about "Replace framework core functionality - like entity engine, >> service engine, and security with Moqui." >>> Is that specific enough? >>> >> Not really: we have talked about bringing the whole Moqui codebase into >> the OFBiz trunk (bad idea in my opinion), or migrating the applications to >> Moqui, or reimplementing them and the sentence above doesn't specify a >> direction. >> And why entity engine, service and security and not for example >> transaction management, connection pooling, ui technology, logging etc...? >> >> Jacopo >> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 4/26/2015 1:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> The discussion is interesting and fascinating but in this thread >> completely different ideas have been expressed: from forking Moqui into >> OFBiz to rewriting OFBiz applications from scratch on top of Moqui etc... >>>> My vote will be negative if the vote will be as generic as "replace >> OFBiz framework with Moqui" is because it would not be an actionable item >> and there could be 1000 totally different ways to implement it. >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Adrian Crum < >> adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: >>>>> This has been discussed for nearly a week now. Shall we start a vote? >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 4/20/2015 6:31 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> Again, as discussed at the ApacheCon in Austin we should start setting >>>>>> up a plan how to best move the ERP application to the Moqui framework. >>>>>> Moqui should not be part of the Apache foundation however the ERP >>>>>> application should remain there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not only will it improve development of the ERP system but also will >>>>>> establish a clean separation between application and frameworks and >>>>>> hopefully getting David Jones back into the project. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I realize i open the pandora box :-) but we need to make some >> major >>>>>> decisions.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Hans Bakker >>>>>> antwebsystems.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >> -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
