Re: [discussion] With plugins, is hot-deploy necessary?

[Taher Alkhateeb]

I tend to agree with Jacques in this case. The behavior of /plugins is
identical to the behavior of /hot-deploy. You can put your component here
or there without a problem. So given that /plugins achieves more, which is
automatic control of plugins through the plugins API, I think we should
prefer to have only one way of extending OFBiz functionality.

Hence, my recommendation is to delete /hot-deploy and remove the
component-loading logic affected by that.

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Wai  wrote:

> This discussion is in reference to...
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9244
> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/plugin-and-hotdeploy-td4702922.html
>
> Now that plugins has been implemented, would hot-deploy be necessary?
>
> As I've mentions in OFBIZ-9244, I think keeping hot-deploy would be useful
> for those that are prototyping new components that might or might not be
> open sourced later. My view is that the plugins directory are for open
> sourced or commercial components that could be downloaded from known
> repositories.  Whereas, the hot-deploy directory is for local
> developments/prototypings.  From an in-house developer's view point with
> multiple proprietary components in development, I find that mixing in-house
> and downloadable components confusing. I.e. difficult to locate my own
> components in the midst of all the available downloaded components (there
> are 12 of them).
>
> On the other hand, Jacques Le Roux takes the position that all plugins
> (open
> sourced, commercial, in-house prototypes) should all be located in one
> place.
>
> You opinions are greatly appreciated.
>
> Kind regards,
> Wai
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.
> com/discussion-With-plugins-is-hot-deploy-necessary-tp4702976.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Use OkHttp?

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

This is minor and more for sharing. While reading http://blog.jevsejev.io/2017/02/19/java-libraries-you-cannot-miss-in-2017/ I spotted OkHttp and 
thought about OFBIZ-4430


And I found this https://github.com/google/agera/issues/22#issuecomment-212353096 So I wonder if we should not use OkHttp but it's just a cursorily 
review...


You may find other interesting projects.

Like Lombok but, despite https://projectlombok.org/features/delombok.html, this honest summary is a warning 
http://jnb.ociweb.com/jnb/jnbJan2010.html#summary


Maybe JUnitParams?

Jacques

Re: Should be keep the multitenant feature even if broken?

[Rishi Solanki]

I dig into the issue and proposed one solution in the same Jira ticket
OFBIZ-9230. Please see if it looks fine or may be we can proceed in that
direction.

Quick Reference from ticket: "In the template/FTL context or in the screen
context whenever we get the delegator as null we can use this delegatorName
first from session and if it is empty then we could try to use default
delegator."

Thanks!


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

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Taher Alkhateeb 
wrote:

> All good points Michael. Replacing is neither short term nor easy as many
> places in the code base depend on this feature, not to mention the need for
> community approval too. I just mentioned this as an alternative solution
> from a technical standpoint.
>
> So our best bet is to fix the issue mentioned by Jacques.
>
> On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Michael Brohl"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Taher,
> >
> > I don't think that this is a valid short-term approach.
> >
> > As far as I know, there are users and also service providers relying on
> > the multi-tenant feature and we should have a mid- to long-term roadmap
> for
> > a migration to other solutions.
> >
> > It would be really helpful to have some opinions by users of the
> > multi-tenancy feature.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > Am 03.03.17 um 13:22 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb:
> >
> >> In my opinion, the multi-tenancy feature can be reasonably replaced with
> >> non-java databases like mysql and postgres combined with docker. Both
> >> instances share the same code base but with two different runtime
> volumes
> >> and two databases. This would actually reduce the complexity of the code
> >> base, especially the entity engine.
> >>
> >> On Mar 3, 2017 10:39 AM, "Jacques Le Roux" <
> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> After my analysis at https://s.apache.org/hvR9 if we don't fix the
> >>> issues
> >>> reported there I wonder if we don't need to remove the multitenant
> >>> feature,
> >>> better not to propose a broken solution!
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

Re: [discussion] With plugins, is hot-deploy necessary?

[Wai]

Either way is fine for me. I'll name my components directories in 'plugins'
with a specific prefix.
Thanks



--
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/discussion-With-plugins-is-hot-deploy-necessary-tp4702976p4702995.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Use OkHttp?

[Pierre Smits]

What is wrong with Apache Commons HttpClient? Wouldn't it be easier to
contact a fellow ASF contributor when we experience issues with the 3rd
party solution?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is minor and more for sharing. While reading
> http://blog.jevsejev.io/2017/02/19/java-libraries-you-cannot-miss-in-2017/
> I spotted OkHttp and thought about OFBIZ-4430
>
> And I found this https://github.com/google/ager
> a/issues/22#issuecomment-212353096 So I wonder if we should not use
> OkHttp but it's just a cursorily review...
>
> You may find other interesting projects.
>
> Like Lombok but, despite https://projectlombok.org/features/delombok.html,
> this honest summary is a warning http://jnb.ociweb.com/jnb/jnbJ
> an2010.html#summary
>
> Maybe JUnitParams?
>
> Jacques
>
>

Re: [discussion] With plugins, is hot-deploy necessary?

[Scott Gray]

I imagine it would be fairly simple to add another top level folder with
the same functionality as plugins if desired. Easy enough that we don't
have to include it out of the box.

On 5/03/2017 03:42, "Wai"  wrote:

> Either way is fine for me. I'll name my components directories in 'plugins'
> with a specific prefix.
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.
> com/discussion-With-plugins-is-hot-deploy-necessary-tp4702976p4702995.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: [discussion] With plugins, is hot-deploy necessary?

[Jacopo Cappellato]

My preference is to remove the hot-deploy folder.
As a side note, the name "hot-deploy" has always been misleading because
most of the components actually require a system restart.

Jacopo


On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Wai  wrote:

> This discussion is in reference to...
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9244
> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/plugin-and-hotdeploy-td4702922.html
>
> Now that plugins has been implemented, would hot-deploy be necessary?
>
> As I've mentions in OFBIZ-9244, I think keeping hot-deploy would be useful
> for those that are prototyping new components that might or might not be
> open sourced later. My view is that the plugins directory are for open
> sourced or commercial components that could be downloaded from known
> repositories.  Whereas, the hot-deploy directory is for local
> developments/prototypings.  From an in-house developer's view point with
> multiple proprietary components in development, I find that mixing in-house
> and downloadable components confusing. I.e. difficult to locate my own
> components in the midst of all the available downloaded components (there
> are 12 of them).
>
> On the other hand, Jacques Le Roux takes the position that all plugins
> (open
> sourced, commercial, in-house prototypes) should all be located in one
> place.
>
> You opinions are greatly appreciated.
>
> Kind regards,
> Wai
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.
> com/discussion-With-plugins-is-hot-deploy-necessary-tp4702976.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>