Re: Framework Independence
The security-related UI artifacts have been moved to the common component and the Web Tools app now has a security UI in rev 1053259. The Party Manager Security tab duplicates the new Web Tools screens, and it is redundant - but I left it in there. It might be eligible for removal. I also left the original widget files in the partmgr component in case we need to go back to them for some reason. If all goes well, I will delete them in the future. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: I will be working on that today. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jones d...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
I ended up parameterizing the form's target attribute to get the results I needed. I will be offline for the holiday, then I will resume work on this next week. -Adrian On 12/21/2010 12:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community. The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the success response view on an event. To illustrate, this request: request-map uri=ProfileEditUserLogin security https=true auth=true/ response name=success type=view value=ProfileEditUserLogin/ /request-map will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: request-map uri=updateUserLoginSecurity security https=true auth=true/ event type=service path= invoke=updateUserLoginSecurity/ response name=success type=view value=EditUserLogin/ response name=error type=view value=EditUserLogin/ /request-map because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code but I'm not having any success. Any ideas? -Adrian On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I will be working on that today. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellatojacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jonesd...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
Re: Framework Independence
Hi Adrian, did you look into portla-controller.xml ? I used several save-last-view there. -Bruno 2010/12/21 Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community. The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the success response view on an event. To illustrate, this request: request-map uri=ProfileEditUserLogin security https=true auth=true/ response name=success type=view value=ProfileEditUserLogin/ /request-map will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: request-map uri=updateUserLoginSecurity security https=true auth=true/ event type=service path= invoke=updateUserLoginSecurity/ response name=success type=view value=EditUserLogin/ response name=error type=view value=EditUserLogin/ /request-map because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code but I'm not having any success. Any ideas? -Adrian On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I will be working on that today. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellatojacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jonesd...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman
Re: Framework Independence
I have looked at a number of existing examples, but I still don't know how it works or what I need to do to solve my problem. -Adrian On 12/21/2010 1:18 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: Hi Adrian, did you look into portla-controller.xml ? I used several save-last-view there. -Bruno 2010/12/21 Adrian Crumadri...@hlmksw.com I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community. The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the success response view on an event. To illustrate, this request: request-map uri=ProfileEditUserLogin security https=true auth=true/ response name=success type=view value=ProfileEditUserLogin/ /request-map will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: request-map uri=updateUserLoginSecurity security https=true auth=true/ event type=service path= invoke=updateUserLoginSecurity/ response name=success type=view value=EditUserLogin/ response name=error type=view value=EditUserLogin/ /request-map because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code but I'm not having any success. Any ideas? -Adrian On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I will be working on that today. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellatojacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jonesd...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the
Re: Framework Independence
By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jones d...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jones d...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
I will be working on that today. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jones d...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
Great! ;-) 2010/12/18 Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com I will be working on that today. -Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application. In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jones d...@me.com Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Framework Independence
I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? IMO a part of the content component could live in the framework. Jacopo -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Framework Independence
At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework are the content entities and their CRUD services. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
I'm guessing you'd also need ContentWorker and DataResourceWorker. Regards Scott On 16/12/2010, at 8:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework are the content entities and their CRUD services. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Framework Independence
I agree. It possible to split content to framework component and keep functionnal on application but I think this operation It's not easy and I haven't suggest how do this. Nicolas Le 15/12/2010 20:15, Adrian Crum a écrit : At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework are the content entities and their CRUD services. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian -- Nicolas MALIN Consultant Tél : 06.17.66.40.06 Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/ --- Société LibrenBerry Tél : 02.48.02.56.12 Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
Re: Framework Independence
the pattern of having the entities and services specific to a component will be broken. so a test file in each folder about were the entities and services are should be included. you can take the webapp/content/docbooks and put in common since it is standalone engine for created docbooks output. suggest put in webapps or common. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 11:15 AM: At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework are the content entities and their CRUD services. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.comhttp://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
I agree this is the way to go. Certain parts of certain application components should have been in the framework from the beginning, but certainly not all of them. Splitting out those specific parts and putting them in framework components as needed is the way to go. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Hi Adam, What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made ofbiz more modular? Many thanks, Chris Adam Heath wrote: Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, I too would like to see a more modular ofbiz (e.g. maven + osgi), but that is a big step. For example, it would be great if people wanting to use just the entity engine could just download the entity engine jars and be up and running. Ew! You said the m-word! maven is like automake, forrest-gumpand that's all I have to say about that./forrest-gump
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Me too, however with the current dependencies ,framework effectively depends on applications anyway. And in fact we have to fix this. Jacopo Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I am against moving party in the framework; we can discuss if a portion of the content should be moved there. Jacopo On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: This is what I am also trying to do. Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working. I think this has to be done into two separate and independent steps: 1) framework (without party and content) independence 2) content and party independence from the other applications I think they are very different goals and I am sure that there are different people interested in one, two or both. For example, I am interested in #1 and I am less interested (I am not saying it is a bad thing, but not worth of the effort considering how I am using OFBiz) in #2. Jacopo Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework. The framework, if you like how it is right now, can stay there but please let us create the possibility to remove applications according to their declared dependency tree. -Bruno 2010/2/26 Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com: You haven't gone far enough. Stop thinking about just what you want. Or just what Bruno wants. Or what the guy from Timbuktu wants. Think about what we all want. Namely, the ability to pick and choose the parts of ofbiz that we want to make use of. Arbitrary assignments of components into parts is the wrong approach. Add features to lower-level components that can be extended by higher-level components. Add dependency references between components as required.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made ofbiz more modular? Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network. Network resources may not be available in all cases. Plus, network resources can become stale, and go away, even if the network is available. Can't require system libraries. Can make use of system libraries, but needs to be able to be completely embedded, if necessary. This is to reduce the requirement of installing a bunch of extra stuff outside of the project being manipulated. Having a build definition file, that is then used to generate the actual build script(s), which are then cached, is frowned upon. Such systems are notorious for not updating the generated files when the generating parts have been updated. This is even more of a problem when only some dependent parts are updated, and you get mismatched generated parts, that then have funky weird issues. Those are my main three points that I would like to see addressed in any kind of build automation framework.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Hi Adam, do you know of any tools available that meet these requirements? Adam Heath wrote: Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made ofbiz more modular? Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network. Network resources may not be available in all cases. Plus, network resources can become stale, and go away, even if the network is available. Can't require system libraries. Can make use of system libraries, but needs to be able to be completely embedded, if necessary. This is to reduce the requirement of installing a bunch of extra stuff outside of the project being manipulated. Having a build definition file, that is then used to generate the actual build script(s), which are then cached, is frowned upon. Such systems are notorious for not updating the generated files when the generating parts have been updated. This is even more of a problem when only some dependent parts are updated, and you get mismatched generated parts, that then have funky weird issues. Those are my main three points that I would like to see addressed in any kind of build automation framework.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, do you know of any tools available that meet these requirements? Um, I may be going out on a limb here, but ant? Adam Heath wrote: Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made ofbiz more modular? Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network. Network resources may not be available in all cases. Plus, network resources can become stale, and go away, even if the network is available. Can't require system libraries. Can make use of system libraries, but needs to be able to be completely embedded, if necessary. This is to reduce the requirement of installing a bunch of extra stuff outside of the project being manipulated. Having a build definition file, that is then used to generate the actual build script(s), which are then cached, is frowned upon. Such systems are notorious for not updating the generated files when the generating parts have been updated. This is even more of a problem when only some dependent parts are updated, and you get mismatched generated parts, that then have funky weird issues. Those are my main three points that I would like to see addressed in any kind of build automation framework.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Thanks for this Adam. These are great points maven versus ant. -David On Feb 27, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Adam Heath wrote: Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made ofbiz more modular? Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network. Network resources may not be available in all cases. Plus, network resources can become stale, and go away, even if the network is available. Can't require system libraries. Can make use of system libraries, but needs to be able to be completely embedded, if necessary. This is to reduce the requirement of installing a bunch of extra stuff outside of the project being manipulated. Having a build definition file, that is then used to generate the actual build script(s), which are then cached, is frowned upon. Such systems are notorious for not updating the generated files when the generating parts have been updated. This is even more of a problem when only some dependent parts are updated, and you get mismatched generated parts, that then have funky weird issues. Those are my main three points that I would like to see addressed in any kind of build automation framework.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Please excuse my ignorance... If the ofbiz src tree was split up into new svn projects (e.g. entity engine, service engine, etc) , would ant be able to easily manage the dependencies between each project? If maven doesn't do the job of managing dependencies very well, what about ivy? Many thanks, Chris Adam Heath wrote: Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, do you know of any tools available that meet these requirements? Um, I may be going out on a limb here, but ant? Adam Heath wrote: Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made ofbiz more modular? Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network. Network resources may not be available in all cases. Plus, network resources can become stale, and go away, even if the network is available. Can't require system libraries. Can make use of system libraries, but needs to be able to be completely embedded, if necessary. This is to reduce the requirement of installing a bunch of extra stuff outside of the project being manipulated. Having a build definition file, that is then used to generate the actual build script(s), which are then cached, is frowned upon. Such systems are notorious for not updating the generated files when the generating parts have been updated. This is even more of a problem when only some dependent parts are updated, and you get mismatched generated parts, that then have funky weird issues. Those are my main three points that I would like to see addressed in any kind of build automation framework.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
David E Jones wrote: Thanks for this Adam. These are great points maven versus ant. It may be possible to do what I want with maven. But the fact that in *all* cases where I have had the horror of seeing maven used by a project, they have *all* been network based, required maven installed in the system, and then installed their built files into $HOME somewhere, tells me that it's not possible. And/or no one really understands how to *use* maven, and they just copy things from a select few who exist on high, that actually do. This is not a tool I wish to use. It tells me it is too hard to actually understand and extend. The best tools are those that get used for something the original authors never intended.
first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? See my comments in the issue.
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
I asked if you had looked at the patch because it cannot be committed as is since it will disable all components except for the framework ones and party + content. The only piece that has a place in a framework only release is the framework, anything else will get constant push back because it was never the intention of such an effort. I know you're in a hurry to get this effort moving but I really don't think it is going to move anywhere near as fast as you want it to. The best thing I think you can do is to thoroughly document every individual framework - application dependency so that a committer who finds the time to work on this will at least have a head start. Most of the reason for these incorrect dependencies were that it was simply the easier path to follow (IMO) and correcting them will be fairly difficult and require a lot of committer time before anything can be committed. Regards Scott On 26/02/2010, at 12:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
I am against moving party in the framework; we can discuss if a portion of the content should be moved there. Jacopo On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Me too, however with the current dependencies ,framework effectively depends on applications anyway. Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I am against moving party in the framework; we can discuss if a portion of the content should be moved there. Jacopo On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Chris, I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can be added to system. Delivery of Help should be controlled by screen design. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Hi Anil, I suppose you could argue that birt should be a plugin too? Not every app needs reporting and birt does add a lot of overhead. Cbeers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: Chris, I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can be added to system. Delivery of Help should be controlled by screen design. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
In fact Yes, I think birt should not be in framework as well. But its ok, because a) because it does not really have any database dependency b) Its third party library integration so the code in Ofbiz framework will not change as much. Ideally, Yes I will like it to be out of the framework :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I suppose you could argue that birt should be a plugin too? Not every app needs reporting and birt does add a lot of overhead. Cbeers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: Chris, I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can be added to system. Delivery of Help should be controlled by screen design. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
You haven't gone far enough. Stop thinking about just what you want. Or just what Bruno wants. Or what the guy from Timbuktu wants. Think about what we all want. Namely, the ability to pick and choose the parts of ofbiz that we want to make use of. Arbitrary assignments of components into parts is the wrong approach. Add features to lower-level components that can be extended by higher-level components. Add dependency references between components as required.
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail This is you. I want to just be able to have a cross-platform way to talk to multiple databases. Joe over there doesn't want any of the widget system, or minilang, but the service engine is what he likes. He has his own way of talking to the database, so would prefer not to have the entity-engine tagging along.
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Hi Chris: If user management is included in the following, then I agree. I don't think I've ever created an application that didn't have at least an administrative user. If not I'd add (basic) user management. Ruth Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
there is a ant build target create-admin-user-login do a ant -p Ruth Hoffman sent the following on 2/26/2010 12:56 PM: Hi Chris: If user management is included in the following, then I agree. I don't think I've ever created an application that didn't have at least an administrative user. If not I'd add (basic) user management. Ruth Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
This is what I am also trying to do. Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working. Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework. The framework, if you like how it is right now, can stay there but please let us create the possibility to remove applications according to their declared dependency tree. -Bruno 2010/2/26 Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com: You haven't gone far enough. Stop thinking about just what you want. Or just what Bruno wants. Or what the guy from Timbuktu wants. Think about what we all want. Namely, the ability to pick and choose the parts of ofbiz that we want to make use of. Arbitrary assignments of components into parts is the wrong approach. Add features to lower-level components that can be extended by higher-level components. Add dependency references between components as required.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Bruno Busco wrote: This is what I am also trying to do. Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working. Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework. The framework, if you like how it is right now, can stay there but please let us create the possibility to remove applications according to their declared dependency tree. Here are more details to how I'd like to see this done. == ./startofbiz.sh run ./startofbiz.sh tests ./startofbiz.sh install == Instead of having hard-coded properties files in the start component, which then reference hard-coded foo-containers.xml, each component that is installed should be allowed to 'register' what it would like each run-target to do. This would make switching between catalina and jetty simple, by just swapping the components, with no editting of anything else. It would make writing an asterisk component simpler, as it has it's own container that has to be run, but modifying the global configs is difficult. It would allow for adding new startup targets, ones that ofbiz hasn't thought of yet(would allow for some types of tests to be run, that don't require entity/service/webapps to be configured, but do require everything on the classpath).
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Adam Heath wrote: Bruno Busco wrote: This is what I am also trying to do. Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working. Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework. The framework, if you like how it is right now, can stay there but please let us create the possibility to remove applications according to their declared dependency tree. Here are more details to how I'd like to see this done. == ./startofbiz.sh run ./startofbiz.sh tests ./startofbiz.sh install == Instead of having hard-coded properties files in the start component, which then reference hard-coded foo-containers.xml, each component that is installed should be allowed to 'register' what it would like each run-target to do. This would make switching between catalina and jetty simple, by just swapping the components, with no editting of anything else. It would make writing an asterisk component simpler, as it has it's own container that has to be run, but modifying the global configs is difficult. It would allow for adding new startup targets, ones that ofbiz hasn't thought of yet(would allow for some types of tests to be run, that don't require entity/service/webapps to be configured, but do require everything on the classpath). ContactMech, TelecomNumber, PostalAddress are more generic than just for party. They should be in a shareable component. orders have a shipping destination, which has nothing to do with a party. Same for facilities. Party is more generic than the party component. Person/PartyGroup should be higher-level, while Party be lower-level. Our components are to large, imho.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Hi Adam, I too would like to see a more modular ofbiz (e.g. maven + osgi), but that is a big step. For example, it would be great if people wanting to use just the entity engine could just download the entity engine jars and be up and running. However, what Bruno and I are proposing is just a first small step towards that. Much more needs to be done after this first step. Many thanks, Chris Adam Heath wrote: You haven't gone far enough. Stop thinking about just what you want. Or just what Bruno wants. Or what the guy from Timbuktu wants. Think about what we all want. Namely, the ability to pick and choose the parts of ofbiz that we want to make use of. Arbitrary assignments of components into parts is the wrong approach. Add features to lower-level components that can be extended by higher-level components. Add dependency references between components as required.
Re: What is ofbiz? was Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Adam, I too would like to see a more modular ofbiz (e.g. maven + osgi), but that is a big step. For example, it would be great if people wanting to use just the entity engine could just download the entity engine jars and be up and running. Ew! You said the m-word! maven is like automake, forrest-gumpand that's all I have to say about that./forrest-gump
