Hi Ron, The benefits exist for both moqui and ofbiz. I was asking about the benefits specific to ofbiz+moqui vs moqui standalone. I still am not sure about those.
Taher Alkhateeb. On May 21, 2015 5:40 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: > I think that you can restate some of the benefits into a value proposition. > > I just don't think that benefits cited turn into a value proposition that > is worth the effort. > > The uncertainty about the legal aspects of using a product with no > ownership or license regime must be resolved before spending effort on any > technical ideas. > > In the short term, I am not sure if there is any urgency to replacing the > Framework. > Fixing the blur between the components and the framework is more of an > urgent issue. > > Once the Framework turns into a product (if it does), the team looking > after the framework could revise the value proposition and deal with the > licensing as a product management issue based on the Framework's position > in the framework market. > > Ron > > On 21/05/2015 10:14 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > >> 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 > >
