Hi Jacques, I think you might be mixing up "multiple webapps" with "duplicate / entangled webapps" in your examples. Yes we probably have other things to get rid of, but I think we should avoid working in the direction of increasing the entanglements instead of fixing root causes.
Also I don't see the point of bringing comments about a different discussion and references to a fork of OFBiz to this discussion and rant about it? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me. > > If you both think it's a valid argument against ecomseo then what about > > accounting, ar and ap webapps in accounting component > > ofbizsetup and ordermgr-js webapps in commonext component > > content and contentimages in content component > > marketing and sfa in marketing component > > facility and catalog in product component > > ical and workeffort in workeffort component > > What are your plans for those? We might decide to change that but it's so > far a feature not a bug. > > We dropped the ecomclone which was just showing how to reuse a webapp in > another webapp. I agreed about dropping it because ecomseo was also showing > the same feature. We can simply document it w/o showing an example in code. > I would not be against but we then need to document it in both readme and > wiki. > > Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we > need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only" > need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the > best. > > I think, but have not tested, that you can use content in ecomseo has it > was abruptly advocated by Hans[1] and Anil[2]. Else we can merge this > feature from ecommerce to ecomseo filters and servlet. > > BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers and sorry to > say but I think the best answer then was from the regretted Adrian[3] > > Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything > anymore, well done experts! > > So you see there is some resentments about this. > > Yes, people worked hard to contribute it with some other main features > like "Solr" OFBIZ-5042 > > But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or the > project, which is only what I have in mind. > > Jacques > [1] http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-URL-Generation-Ch > anges-tp4639289p4639294.html > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm > entId=13939116&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta > bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116 > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm > entId=13942316&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta > bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13942316 > [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_ERP > [5] http://www.scipioerp.com/ > > > Le 24/01/2017 à 21:24, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >> Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps >> >> On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My >>> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with two >>> webapps. A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with >>> one >>> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and >>> interdependencies. >>> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed >>> without a thorough review. >>> >>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" < >>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Inline... >>>> >>>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit : >>>> >>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge of >>>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation >>>>> is >>>>> a >>>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at >>>>> SeoConfig.xml >>>>> and have no idea what most of it does. >>>>> >>>>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default. >>>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better, >>>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz >>>> >>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it without >>>>> any risk? >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand this question. >>>>> >>>>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the >>>> web >>>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent >>>> them to >>>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on >>>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers >>>> (Google, >>>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large >>>> would benefit from using only ecomseo. >>>> >>>> >>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say. >>>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed but >>>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite >>>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier >>>>> codebase. >>>>> >>>>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content >>>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to >>>> end >>>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do... >>>> >>>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase? >>>> >>>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches that >>>> >>>>> now >>>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't >>>>> make >>>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from OFBIZ-5312 >>>> content >>>> >>>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the >>>> >>>>> mess >>>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature. I'll >>>>> never >>>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something >>>>> committed >>>>> that they'll push forward at any cost. Not every feature has to start >>>>> it's >>>>> life in the OFBiz repo. >>>>> >>>>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did >>>> it >>>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an >>>> alternative. For me it's a better solution. >>>> >>>> >>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by >>>>> default :/ >>>>> >>>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me. I'm against >>>>> any >>>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to clean >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good >>>>>> argument >>>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like >>>>>> to >>>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk? >>>>>> >>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd >>>>>> say. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by >>>>>> default :/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Compare >>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo >>>>>> with >>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other >>>>>> >>>>>>> users >>>>>>> (and ideally committers). I don't like having two ecommerce webapps >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> architected. A document describing the architecture would make that >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no >>>>>>> wonder >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long. But since one doesn't >>>>>>> exist >>>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it >>>>>>> and/or >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> it and provide feedback. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=project >>>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it? I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> haven't >>>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual >>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>> right >>>>>>>>> now. The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales >>>>>>>>> pitch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>> com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well? Have you >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> deployed >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> to any production instances? Has anyone else? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> clone >>>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng >>>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to >>>>>>>>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big >>>>>>>>>>> changes, >>>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >
