Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hi Jacques,

please see inline:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>
[...]

> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers
>
[...]

> 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.
>
[...]

I have extracted some the sentences above from your message because I think
they are a bad example of dealing with disagreement: they do not add any
useful technical content and are going to raise the temperature of the
thread and maybe resurrect an years old and ugly discussion.
Not useful at all.

On the other hand:


> 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.

[...] 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.


with the two sentences above you have provided a good summary of what I
consider a positive and productive output of this discussion and also a
message that shows a positive attitude.

My advice, for you and others interested in this thread, is to focus on the
latter and refrain from commenting on the former.

Jacopo

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Taher Alkhateeb]

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=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
> entId=13942316=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" 
>> 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 

Ecomseo specifications

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jonathan,

Maybe you can help me explain the OFBiz community the specs of ecomseo, which is the improved OFBiz ecommerce version you helped to contribute with 
ilscipio, and why it's better?


The demos at http://ofbiz.apache.org/ show the 2 cases. The stable demo is 
using the old way when the trunk demo is using ecomseo

Jacques

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 25/01/2017 à 03:56, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :

On 25 January 2017 at 07:12, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:



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.


Are you saying that there are more differences between ecommerce and
ecomseo than just the format of the URLs, and that those other differences
lead to a security flaw in ecommerce? If that is right, shouldn't the flaw
be fixed in its own right, as a separate issue from the exact format of
URLs?

Thanks

Paul


Hi Paul,

No it's not a security flaw, just that spiders will do a better job using 
ecomseo and there are other features.
I have asked Jonathan Schikowski on Tweeter 
https://twitter.com/schikowski?lang=fr who is the SEO expert I referred too if 
he can help me explain details

I'll also start a thread here

Jacque

Re: buildbot failure in on ofbiz-trunk

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jinghai,

You are welcome, I'll have a look ASAP (not right now, I must move)

Cheers

Jacques

PS: No worries, it works here (locally on Win7) so it's a Builbot hiccup, I'll 
check that



Le 25/01/2017 à 04:59, Shi Jinghai a écrit :

Hmm, I read the log and found some errors. I don't know how to resolve these 
problems.

This error is the first one and I guess it causes other errors:
Jan 25, 2017 3:14:06 AM org.apache.coyote.AbstractProtocol init
SEVERE: Failed to initialize end point associated with ProtocolHandler 
["http-nio-8080"]
java.net.BindException: Address already in use

I need Jacques's help ... HELP ...

-邮件原件-
发件人: build...@apache.org [mailto:build...@apache.org]
发送时间: 2017年1月25日 11:18
收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
主题: buildbot failure in on ofbiz-trunk

The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder ofbiz-trunk while building . 
Full details are available at:
 https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/1861

Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/

Buildslave for this Build: silvanus_ubuntu

Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'on-ofbiz-commit' 
triggered this build Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1780133
Blamelist: shijh

BUILD FAILED: failed shell_1

Sincerely,
  -The Buildbot

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Jinghai!

Happy you referred to Jonathan, I was then just asking him some help here :)

Jacques


Le 25/01/2017 à 02:30, Shi Jinghai a écrit :

+1.

SEO is very important for ecommerce websites. When I implemented it, Jonathan 
Schikowski offered me many principles of SEO, it's not a function only, it's 
more a protocol OFBiz talks with a search engine.

I think setting ecomseo as default entrance of ecommerce will more users know 
OFBiz has SEO OOTB, and we are easy to get more inputs on how to improve it.

-邮件原件-
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com]
发送时间: 2017年1月25日 1:57
收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
主题: Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

I'm all for that. Using ecomseo instead of ecommerce, I mean. But when I 
proposed so, Anil refused and I went with this solution. For details see 
https://s.apache.org/UVqw

Actually as a diff between the 2 web.xml files shows there are also a bunch of 
other changes with the new filters and servlets, but yes that's pretty much it.

Sincerely, it was "some" work to come to this accommodation as OFBIZ-5312 
history shows. From the ilscipio team which Paul represent, Jinghai and I. I also thanks 
Sebastian, Ingo and Josip, who helped in initial tests.

Jacques


Le 22/01/2017 à 23:03, Scott Gray a écrit :

If there was a change to be made, it should have been to work on
moving ecomseo into ecommerce.  There's not really any good reason for
both of them to exist when the only differences between the webapps
are the web.xml files.

Regards
Scott

On 23 January 2017 at 10:44, Jacques Le Roux

wrote:


OK, I'll answer your questions step by step. I just need time...

Jacques


Le 22/01/2017 à 22:01, Scott Gray a écrit :


1. Ask for input
2. Get no responses except a -1
3. Wait for a few months
4. Proceed anyway without further discussion

In future it might be quicker to just skip step 1.

Regards
Scott

On 23 January 2017 at 02:06, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:

Done, I have added links for developers

Jacques



Le 18/01/2017 à 09:45, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

I have done the change for R16.11.

BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not
official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?

Jacques


Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :

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?

It works well for me.

Have you deployed it to any production instances?

Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo

Has anyone else?

At least

https://www.buchhandel.de/
https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312

Jacques


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+
Engine+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

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

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-Changes-tp4639289p4639294.html
[2] 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedCommentId=13939116=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
[3] 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedCommentId=13942316=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels: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" 
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" 
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 

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

Michael,


Le 24/01/2017 à 22:21, Michael Brohl a écrit :

Jacques,

I must say that I don't like this action.

I have re-read the discussion you had with Scott about this subject and also briefly read the discussions in 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312 (huge!).


There were strong objections against this change. I must say the discussion in OFBIZ-5312 was not done very well on both sides in OFBIZ-5312. There 
were only standpoints and few attempts to really explain the functionality (existing vs. new) and lacks a documentation of what is changed and why. 
I also had the expression that there were several developers trying to stitch together artifacts from other projects, see mainly Oct. 2013.


Despite Scott's objections against the use of ecomseo as the default ecommerce app and also no other voices to second your proposal, you changed the 
default. I cannot see why you asked for opinions and then act against the only opinion you get after a while?


After some months, I simply forgot Scott's answer a got ahead, human error.



There was no reason to force this. Nothing was broken and there were also no voices who strongly wanted the change in the last months, if I recall 
correctly. The only thing you achieve might be confusing users who experience an ecommerce demo with different behaviour regarding URLs.


Did you try it? I believe users would prefer ecomseo against 
ecommerce/control/main, etc.



I second Scott's approach to take the time to thoroughly analyze the different URL generation/"SEO" approaches in both implementations and merge 
them in a best-of-breed solution. That requires hard work in understanding everything and might take a while.


I also can agree on this



Additionally, we should first have a catalogue of substantiated requirements 
and match them against these implementations.


Looking forward for help from the community



You mentioned that there was work done with the consultation of a SEO expert. It would be great if he could give input about the requirements on 
which the ecomseo implementation was done.


I'll ask him



I propose to revert this change and start over with the above mentioned steps 
first before anything is changed again.


Done for R16.11, I kept the trunk since I just added it and it's a good way to 
compare with stable

Jacques



Best regards,

Michael


Am 18.01.17 um 09:45 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

I have done the change for R16.11.

BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not official?) 
somewhere in the site or the wiki?

Jacques


Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :

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?

It works well for me.

Have you deployed it to any production instances?

Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo

Has anyone else?

At least
https://www.buchhandel.de/
https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312

Jacques



Regards
Scott

On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux 

Re: buildbot failure in on ofbiz-trunk

[Shi Jinghai]

Hmm, I read the log and found some errors. I don't know how to resolve these 
problems.

This error is the first one and I guess it causes other errors:
Jan 25, 2017 3:14:06 AM org.apache.coyote.AbstractProtocol init
SEVERE: Failed to initialize end point associated with ProtocolHandler 
["http-nio-8080"]
java.net.BindException: Address already in use

I need Jacques's help ... HELP ...

-邮件原件-
发件人: build...@apache.org [mailto:build...@apache.org] 
发送时间: 2017年1月25日 11:18
收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
主题: buildbot failure in on ofbiz-trunk

The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder ofbiz-trunk while building . 
Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/1861

Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/

Buildslave for this Build: silvanus_ubuntu

Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'on-ofbiz-commit' 
triggered this build Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1780133
Blamelist: shijh

BUILD FAILED: failed shell_1

Sincerely,
 -The Buildbot

buildbot failure in on ofbiz-trunk

[buildbot]

The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder ofbiz-trunk while building . 
Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/1861

Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/

Buildslave for this Build: silvanus_ubuntu

Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'on-ofbiz-commit' 
triggered this build
Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1780133
Blamelist: shijh

BUILD FAILED: failed shell_1

Sincerely,
 -The Buildbot

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Paul Foxworthy]

On 25 January 2017 at 07:12, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:


> 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.
>

Are you saying that there are more differences between ecommerce and
ecomseo than just the format of the URLs, and that those other differences
lead to a security flaw in ecommerce? If that is right, shouldn't the flaw
be fixed in its own right, as a separate issue from the exact format of
URLs?

Thanks

Paul

-- 
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Australia

Phone: +61 3 9585 6788
Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
Email: i...@coherentsoftware.com.au

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Shi Jinghai]

+1.

SEO is very important for ecommerce websites. When I implemented it, Jonathan 
Schikowski offered me many principles of SEO, it's not a function only, it's 
more a protocol OFBiz talks with a search engine.

I think setting ecomseo as default entrance of ecommerce will more users know 
OFBiz has SEO OOTB, and we are easy to get more inputs on how to improve it.

-邮件原件-
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com] 
发送时间: 2017年1月25日 1:57
收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
主题: Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

I'm all for that. Using ecomseo instead of ecommerce, I mean. But when I 
proposed so, Anil refused and I went with this solution. For details see 
https://s.apache.org/UVqw

Actually as a diff between the 2 web.xml files shows there are also a bunch of 
other changes with the new filters and servlets, but yes that's pretty much it.

Sincerely, it was "some" work to come to this accommodation as OFBIZ-5312 
history shows. From the ilscipio team which Paul represent, Jinghai and I. I 
also thanks Sebastian, Ingo and Josip, who helped in initial tests.

Jacques


Le 22/01/2017 à 23:03, Scott Gray a écrit :
> If there was a change to be made, it should have been to work on 
> moving ecomseo into ecommerce.  There's not really any good reason for 
> both of them to exist when the only differences between the webapps 
> are the web.xml files.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 23 January 2017 at 10:44, Jacques Le Roux 
> 
> wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll answer your questions step by step. I just need time...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 22/01/2017 à 22:01, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>
>>> 1. Ask for input
>>> 2. Get no responses except a -1
>>> 3. Wait for a few months
>>> 4. Proceed anyway without further discussion
>>>
>>> In future it might be quicker to just skip step 1.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 23 January 2017 at 02:06, Jacques Le Roux < 
>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Done, I have added links for developers
 Jacques



 Le 18/01/2017 à 09:45, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

 I have done the change for R16.11.
> BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not
> official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>
> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :
>> 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?
>>>
>>> It works well for me.
>> Have you deployed it to any production instances?
>>> Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo
>> Has anyone else?
>>> At least
>> https://www.buchhandel.de/
>> https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
>> I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> 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+
 Engine+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

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Michael Brohl]

Jacques,

I must say that I don't like this action.

I have re-read the discussion you had with Scott about this subject and 
also briefly read the discussions in 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312 (huge!).


There were strong objections against this change. I must say the 
discussion in OFBIZ-5312 was not done very well on both sides in 
OFBIZ-5312. There were only standpoints and few attempts to really 
explain the functionality (existing vs. new) and lacks a documentation 
of what is changed and why. I also had the expression that there were 
several developers trying to stitch together artifacts from other 
projects, see mainly Oct. 2013.


Despite Scott's objections against the use of ecomseo as the default 
ecommerce app and also no other voices to second your proposal, you 
changed the default. I cannot see why you asked for opinions and then 
act against the only opinion you get after a while?


There was no reason to force this. Nothing was broken and there were 
also no voices who strongly wanted the change in the last months, if I 
recall correctly. The only thing you achieve might be confusing users 
who experience an ecommerce demo with different behaviour regarding URLs.


I second Scott's approach to take the time to thoroughly analyze the 
different URL generation/"SEO" approaches in both implementations and 
merge them in a best-of-breed solution. That requires hard work in 
understanding everything and might take a while.


Additionally, we should first have a catalogue of substantiated 
requirements and match them against these implementations.


You mentioned that there was work done with the consultation of a SEO 
expert. It would be great if he could give input about the requirements 
on which the ecomseo implementation was done.


I propose to revert this change and start over with the above mentioned 
steps first before anything is changed again.


Best regards,

Michael


Am 18.01.17 um 09:45 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

I have done the change for R16.11.

BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not 
official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?


Jacques


Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :

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?

It works well for me.

Have you deployed it to any production instances?

Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo

Has anyone else?

At least
https://www.buchhandel.de/
https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312

Jacques



Regards
Scott

On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux 

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Taher Alkhateeb]

Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps

On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" 
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" 
> 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 

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Taher Alkhateeb]

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" 
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:
> 

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

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 
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 

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

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 think Christian (G/eisert/ ) can tell you more about the buchhandel.de site.


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.


Actually the idea is quite simple: with the functional expertise of a SEO consultant replace OFBiz original ecommerce filters and servlet by SEO 
improved specific ones.




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.


I don't think we need to explain the architecture, it's the same than for the 
ecommerce webapp, just the filters and servlet have changed

Jacques



Regards
Scott

On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux 
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

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

Scott,

I did not answer clearly to this question (inline)
Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :

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?


I personally did not deploy it on a production instance.
But I know others did when the patch was proposed and that's 2+ years ago.
One of the sites I referred to in another thread is still successfully using 
this solution https://www.buchhandel.de/info/beta.html

By battle test it I mean to use it on our official demo. Personally I no longer 
use the ecommerce webapp locally only ecomseo, without any specific issues

Jacques




Regards
Scott

On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux 

Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[Jacques Le Roux]

I'm all for that. Using ecomseo instead of ecommerce, I mean. But when I proposed so, Anil refused and I went with this solution. For details see 
https://s.apache.org/UVqw


Actually as a diff between the 2 web.xml files shows there are also a bunch of other changes with the new filters and servlets, but yes that's pretty 
much it.


Sincerely, it was "some" work to come to this accommodation as OFBIZ-5312 history shows. From the ilscipio team which Paul represent, Jinghai and I. I 
also thanks Sebastian, Ingo and Josip, who helped in initial tests.


Jacques


Le 22/01/2017 à 23:03, Scott Gray a écrit :

If there was a change to be made, it should have been to work on moving
ecomseo into ecommerce.  There's not really any good reason for both of
them to exist when the only differences between the webapps are the web.xml
files.

Regards
Scott

On 23 January 2017 at 10:44, Jacques Le Roux 
wrote:


OK, I'll answer your questions step by step. I just need time...

Jacques


Le 22/01/2017 à 22:01, Scott Gray a écrit :


1. Ask for input
2. Get no responses except a -1
3. Wait for a few months
4. Proceed anyway without further discussion

In future it might be quicker to just skip step 1.

Regards
Scott

On 23 January 2017 at 02:06, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:

Done, I have added links for developers

Jacques



Le 18/01/2017 à 09:45, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

I have done the change for R16.11.

BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not
official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?

Jacques


Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :

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?

It works well for me.

Have you deployed it to any production instances?

Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo

Has anyone else?

At least

https://www.buchhandel.de/
https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312

Jacques


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+
Engine+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

Re: User Acceptance Test Cases For Ecommerce 14.12

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Rishi,

Indeed I needed a clarification, sorry for that.

It's a great initiative, OFBiz will then really be at professional standards, 
and that's great!

I agree that we have first to create and document these UAT and then think 
about a tool to run them.
Cucumber seems the best tool for that to me.  I also know that Gil (Portenseigne) from Néréide has begun to use Cucumber for a custom project, hence 
my haste :)


Jacques


Le 23/01/2017 à 08:05, Rishi Solanki a écrit :

Thanks Jacques for your reply and raising concerns. It seems that, I was
not clear enough. Let me try to rephrase what we are doing. If you observe
then Pranay has created new hierachy for each release like 14.12, 15.12 ...
so on.

For each release we have the user stories, and we are adding UATs for each
user story. For each user story we are discussing the cases we should test
manually and also try them to dicuss on the mailing list (user/dev). Once
we are sure, we document and test the cases (manually) and put the results
in the Actual results and Pass/Fail.

Please note that, before documenting anything as Pass or Fail we are really
running that scenario. The intention of doing this, we can say that the
released branches of OFBiz are tested on certain scenarios and all get
passed. After completing this activity, we as a community can say 14.12
branch tested for say 1000 user acceptance test cases and out of them 950
get passed and 50 are reported and fail for that branch. Once we complete
this activity, we could start fixing them.

For the same we have started multiple email threads to get the feedback
from community, so that we could get more cases for the user stories. In
other words, we have automated tests with us, but this time we are trying
to add documents for the manual tests user could see and increase in faith
on each relase.

I hope I'm clear this time :-). And yes I agree on the fact that we should
think on automating these tests to run them frequently. And I think for
that we again need what to tests get documented. We can assume it as first
step towards automation.

PS: Team, please add more details if I miss something.


Rishi Solanki
Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: +91-9893287847
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:


Thanks Rishi,

This is interesting, do you envision a mean to automate these tests and
run them frequently?

Say either on each build (using BuildBot for instance), or on another
frequency if they happens to be at term longer than our commit frequency
would support.

So the question is do you plan to use a tool for that? I say that because
it seems to me that Cucumber (MIT license) could be used for that...

Jacques


Le 21/01/2017 à 16:51, Rishi Solanki a écrit :


Devs,

We have started working on few user stories mentioned at Ecommerce-14.12
 and
adding user acceptance test (UAT) cases for them. For now we have added
test cases for two user stories as follows;
- Login Page
- Login and Update Personal Information

We have updated the document with the identified UATs so that can get
feedback from community on them.

- For now we have added the UATs just below the user stories in the
document. Please let us know if we are fine with this location?
- We are using *EC-LP* and *EC-LUPI *as prefix for the above mentioned two
user stories. Please review and let us know your thoughts on it, so that
we
can follow one common pattern.

Any other feedback in UATs are most welcome to improve the quality. Going
forward we would follow the same practice.

Thanks to Aman Mishra for providing the UATs for both stories.


Best Regards,
--
Rishi Solanki
Sr. Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: +91-9893287847
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com