Jacques I'm lost! The message we are discussing is how to handle the two ecommerce webapps, and you are going all over the place by talking about things like:
- a historical argument about ecomseo - an OFBiz fork - community over code - human What does all of the above have to do with what we are discussing? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Hi Taher, > > Le 25/01/2017 à 08:03, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >> 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. >> > > Sincerely I was really proud of myself when I thought about and > implemented this solution (then temporary in my mind). When Anil kinda > imposed a veto on ecomseo and I had no time to prove that we could still > use the contents way with ecomseo. > > I still see it as something very clean which allows to easily compare the > 2 solutions w/o any burden on the legacy. > > Anyway, my intention was then indeed to compare and argument to replace > the ecommerce webapp by ecomseo (which would then be renamed ecommerce). It > seems we are ready for that, are we? > > > 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? >> > > Human, I'm an human not a robot. > > This remembers a joke we had with Andrew Sykes in the early days. A lot of > the code we still rely on has been writing by Andrew Zenesky (you cleaned > some of it). We were "wondering" if actually Andrew (Zenesky) was not > actually a robot. Because of the speed he was writing code! > > See? Human, "Community over code"[1][2] :) > > Jacques > [1] http://communityovercode.com/ > [2] http://theapacheway.com/ > > > >> 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=proje >>>>>>>>>> ct >>>>>>>>>> %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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
