Actually, this discussion started 5 years ago, when David first proposed
rewriting the framework. He gave a good list of reasons why it was
necessary. We have been discussing it periodically since then.
I tried to find the original conversation, but I was unsuccessful. It
occurred somewhere between mid-to-late 2009. Here is a later discussion
that was a follow up:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ofbiz-dev/201104.mbox/%3c07565c88-4023-4d24-93a3-a4906e86f...@me.com%3E
In response to that email, I created this wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
because I believed (and still believe) that our development team is
capable of rewriting the framework.
The discussion at ApacheCon was brief, and during that discussion I
covered everything above.
To summarize: The current framework code is old and brittle, making it
difficult to maintain. The API is obtuse - making it difficult to use.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 5/21/2015 7:14 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
