Re: OFBIZ project health (was: Re: Latest OFBiz board report to the ASF about the health of the project)
Is you response directed to me, Scot? Or is it to all of the 'other kind of contributors than you are'? If directed at me, then have the common decency to state my name, so that all of us do know that too. RE: mailing list moderators. Up to yesterday, I was not aware of the fact that there was such a group, nor who the members are that are policing what gets in mailing list. Having done a little search on that subject in our wikis I found no reference about it, nor a disclosure of this. Doing a wider search in my mail archives I found that Jacques expressed back in November 2013 that it was unclear to him who those moderators were. And he is a PMC Member. I guess I must compliment the PMC on showing such great restraint in: - disclosing that there is a group within this community called the 'mailing list moderators' - disclosing who the community members are that are policing our mailing lists - reporting on what this group has kept out and/or removed our mailing lists. My advise to the PMC is to re-evaluate and correct that situation. This community deserves transparency and disclosure. RE: critique Yes, Jacopo was criticising me using this mailing list for this matter. Not you, nor any other community member. That you think about it and express your viewpoint is a good thing to improve the work and/or the interactions between community members of this project. But don't try to shun or ostracize the other community member that does the same. Like you have tried in the past onto me and others with even far less moderation in you tones than you are sharing now. How wondrous and ambiguous you are when saying that 'community members perceive my actions in a negative way' and that thus meritocacy works against me. Is that your kind of community members? Or the other kind, the kind with the power to vote? The way you have expressed your self in the past, you could better have said 'we, the active committers and PMC members'. And meritocracy works against me? In this project it is applied as a popularity poll amongst persons who, in my opinion, only vote to protect their power base. But not in respect of bringing this project further, community wise. From day one of my participation in this project, from my first contribution onwards the cards in the deck have been stacked against me and any of the other kind of contributor, because: - I haven't done code contributions to the set of components in the framework stack, - I haven't been your lackey, serf or yes-man every time you, and the other contributors like you, contributed stuff, - I have called you out when you used foul language towards other community members and myself. And you hold grudges. Since the day this project came out of the incubator, since the day archives and stats are available on the mailing lists and, for sure, on the other tools of this project, it shows that I am, in absolute numbers, one of the most active non-committing contributors in this projects, whether you look at identifying issues, contributing patches helping newcomers and other community members and promoting both the works of this project and the project itself. Even promoting other contributors. I have been even more active than some of your kind. And if you or anyone else don't or doens't believe me, for an indication you can have a look at the 'Who sent it' overview in http://markmail.org/search/?q=ofbiz I am in the top 25. That you regard my contributions as mediocre and/or argumentative for the sake of arguing, like you have done in the past, says more about you and your regards for contributions of the other kind of contributors and thus about those contributors, than the actual, objective merit of these contributions to this project. Meritocracy at work, my ass. That we disagree on points is fact. I respect our differences in viewpoints. I regret that you don't express - through your actions - the capability, nor the willingness to work with every contributor in finding consensus in improving this community and the total some of works of this project. Nonetheless, I do appreciate all your contributions to improve the quality of the code base of the components in the framework stack. And I'll appreciate you leaving the other stuff of this project to others. Now, to put it in the same paternalistic way as Jacopo has done, let's all get back to work, do what each of us is good at and thus make OFBiz a better project and product. And stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
OfBiz workflow
Hi, I'm trying to implement a workflow with OFBiz. I'm using Ofbiz 12.04. I tried using the ofbiz-workflow and shark but getting a lot of errors. I'm new to OfBiz. Is there any workflow which can be intergrated with OfBiz 12.04? OSWorkflow and jBPM are the other ones that I've tried, but could not complete the integration. -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OFBIZ project health (was: Re: Latest OFBiz board report to the ASF about the health of the project)
Quite a novel you've written there Piere. There's so many things I'd like to clarify in your rant but you're so far detached from the reality of how this community works that it's gotten to the point of being pointless. Regards Scott On 19 September 2014 20:59:48 GMT+12:00, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Is you response directed to me, Scot? Or is it to all of the 'other kind of contributors than you are'? If directed at me, then have the common decency to state my name, so that all of us do know that too. RE: mailing list moderators. Up to yesterday, I was not aware of the fact that there was such a group, nor who the members are that are policing what gets in mailing list. Having done a little search on that subject in our wikis I found no reference about it, nor a disclosure of this. Doing a wider search in my mail archives I found that Jacques expressed back in November 2013 that it was unclear to him who those moderators were. And he is a PMC Member. I guess I must compliment the PMC on showing such great restraint in: - disclosing that there is a group within this community called the 'mailing list moderators' - disclosing who the community members are that are policing our mailing lists - reporting on what this group has kept out and/or removed our mailing lists. My advise to the PMC is to re-evaluate and correct that situation. This community deserves transparency and disclosure. RE: critique Yes, Jacopo was criticising me using this mailing list for this matter. Not you, nor any other community member. That you think about it and express your viewpoint is a good thing to improve the work and/or the interactions between community members of this project. But don't try to shun or ostracize the other community member that does the same. Like you have tried in the past onto me and others with even far less moderation in you tones than you are sharing now. How wondrous and ambiguous you are when saying that 'community members perceive my actions in a negative way' and that thus meritocacy works against me. Is that your kind of community members? Or the other kind, the kind with the power to vote? The way you have expressed your self in the past, you could better have said 'we, the active committers and PMC members'. And meritocracy works against me? In this project it is applied as a popularity poll amongst persons who, in my opinion, only vote to protect their power base. But not in respect of bringing this project further, community wise. From day one of my participation in this project, from my first contribution onwards the cards in the deck have been stacked against me and any of the other kind of contributor, because: - I haven't done code contributions to the set of components in the framework stack, - I haven't been your lackey, serf or yes-man every time you, and the other contributors like you, contributed stuff, - I have called you out when you used foul language towards other community members and myself. And you hold grudges. Since the day this project came out of the incubator, since the day archives and stats are available on the mailing lists and, for sure, on the other tools of this project, it shows that I am, in absolute numbers, one of the most active non-committing contributors in this projects, whether you look at identifying issues, contributing patches helping newcomers and other community members and promoting both the works of this project and the project itself. Even promoting other contributors. I have been even more active than some of your kind. And if you or anyone else don't or doens't believe me, for an indication you can have a look at the 'Who sent it' overview in http://markmail.org/search/?q=ofbiz I am in the top 25. That you regard my contributions as mediocre and/or argumentative for the sake of arguing, like you have done in the past, says more about you and your regards for contributions of the other kind of contributors and thus about those contributors, than the actual, objective merit of these contributions to this project. Meritocracy at work, my ass. That we disagree on points is fact. I respect our differences in viewpoints. I regret that you don't express - through your actions - the capability, nor the willingness to work with every contributor in finding consensus in improving this community and the total some of works of this project. Nonetheless, I do appreciate all your contributions to improve the quality of the code base of the components in the framework stack. And I'll appreciate you leaving the other stuff of this project to others. Now, to put it in the same paternalistic way as Jacopo has done, let's all get back to work, do what each of us is good at and thus make OFBiz a better project and product. And stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and
Re: OFBIZ project health (was: Re: Latest OFBiz board report to the ASF about the health of the project)
Like debating with you, Sott Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: Quite a novel you've written there Piere. There's so many things I'd like to clarify in your rant but you're so far detached from the reality of how this community works that it's gotten to the point of being pointless. Regards Scott On 19 September 2014 20:59:48 GMT+12:00, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Is you response directed to me, Scot? Or is it to all of the 'other kind of contributors than you are'? If directed at me, then have the common decency to state my name, so that all of us do know that too. RE: mailing list moderators. Up to yesterday, I was not aware of the fact that there was such a group, nor who the members are that are policing what gets in mailing list. Having done a little search on that subject in our wikis I found no reference about it, nor a disclosure of this. Doing a wider search in my mail archives I found that Jacques expressed back in November 2013 that it was unclear to him who those moderators were. And he is a PMC Member. I guess I must compliment the PMC on showing such great restraint in: - disclosing that there is a group within this community called the 'mailing list moderators' - disclosing who the community members are that are policing our mailing lists - reporting on what this group has kept out and/or removed our mailing lists. My advise to the PMC is to re-evaluate and correct that situation. This community deserves transparency and disclosure. RE: critique Yes, Jacopo was criticising me using this mailing list for this matter. Not you, nor any other community member. That you think about it and express your viewpoint is a good thing to improve the work and/or the interactions between community members of this project. But don't try to shun or ostracize the other community member that does the same. Like you have tried in the past onto me and others with even far less moderation in you tones than you are sharing now. How wondrous and ambiguous you are when saying that 'community members perceive my actions in a negative way' and that thus meritocacy works against me. Is that your kind of community members? Or the other kind, the kind with the power to vote? The way you have expressed your self in the past, you could better have said 'we, the active committers and PMC members'. And meritocracy works against me? In this project it is applied as a popularity poll amongst persons who, in my opinion, only vote to protect their power base. But not in respect of bringing this project further, community wise. From day one of my participation in this project, from my first contribution onwards the cards in the deck have been stacked against me and any of the other kind of contributor, because: - I haven't done code contributions to the set of components in the framework stack, - I haven't been your lackey, serf or yes-man every time you, and the other contributors like you, contributed stuff, - I have called you out when you used foul language towards other community members and myself. And you hold grudges. Since the day this project came out of the incubator, since the day archives and stats are available on the mailing lists and, for sure, on the other tools of this project, it shows that I am, in absolute numbers, one of the most active non-committing contributors in this projects, whether you look at identifying issues, contributing patches helping newcomers and other community members and promoting both the works of this project and the project itself. Even promoting other contributors. I have been even more active than some of your kind. And if you or anyone else don't or doens't believe me, for an indication you can have a look at the 'Who sent it' overview in http://markmail.org/search/?q=ofbiz I am in the top 25. That you regard my contributions as mediocre and/or argumentative for the sake of arguing, like you have done in the past, says more about you and your regards for contributions of the other kind of contributors and thus about those contributors, than the actual, objective merit of these contributions to this project. Meritocracy at work, my ass. That we disagree on points is fact. I respect our differences in viewpoints. I regret that you don't express - through your actions - the capability, nor the willingness to work with every contributor in finding consensus in improving this community and the total some of works of this project. Nonetheless, I do appreciate all your contributions to improve the quality of the code base of the components in the framework stack. And I'll appreciate you leaving
Re: OfBiz workflow
Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OfBiz workflow
Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OfBiz workflow
I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: OfBiz workflow
That is a excelent suggestion, Ron. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Fwd: ApacheCon - How you can help
Hi all, I like to share with you the message below from the Executive V.P. of the ASF regarding the Apachecon event. Please take notice and act on it. It will surely help spread the word about our project and its works. Again I present you the url for the schedule of the OFBiz talks at the Apachecon EU 2014 event to be held in Budapest from Nov 17th till Nov 21st, 2014. https://apacheconeu2014.sched.org/overview/type/ofbiz If you can not make it to this event in Europe and you are living in the US, there will be an Apachecon event in Austin, TX, USA in April 2014. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com -- Forwarded message -- From: Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:37 PM Subject: ApacheCon - How you can help To: d...@community.apache.org Here's the most important ways that you can help with ApacheCon EU right now, in order of importance. * If you are involved in an Apache project that has content at ApacheCon, send messages to your users@ and dev@ list telling them about that content, and telling people that they need to be there. Tell them specifically what talks they need to come for, and what developers they'll get to hang out with at the event. Tell them that they are doing their career a disservice if they don't come to this event. Remind them that committers have a deep discount, so if they're not committers now, here's a *great* reason for them to get on that train for next time. Remind the US audience that if they can't make it to Budapest, they should plan to come to Austin in April. * Reach out to other audiences - Twitter, Facebook, and G+, certainly, but also other non-Apache projects you're involved with that have strong overlap with our content. Again, mention specific talks and people that will be at the event. * If your company cares about or relies on any Apache technology, encourage them to sponsor the event and/or send an employee to the event. Remind them that it's about more than just the technical content - they will get to have first-hand contact with the people that develop the software, and become part of that community, with the possibility to participate in shaping the future of that product. If there's a spark of interest in sponsorship, have them get in touch with me - rbo...@apache.org - and we'll take it from there. * Follow and retweet the @apachecon account. -- rbo...@apache.org http://apache.org/
Re: OfBiz workflow
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- R.E.(Ted) Byers, Ph.D.,Ed.D. t...@merchantservicecorp.com
Re: OfBiz workflow
I am sorry, I do not understand the question. In this project, we collaborate using Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ so that everyone can participate, share files, vote, etc. If the Work Flow idea requires extensive labor, then Jira can be used to break down tasks, assign people to tasks, track progress, etc. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 4:34 PM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OfBiz workflow
They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: OfBiz workflow
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 -- R.E.(Ted) Byers, Ph.D.,Ed.D. t...@merchantservicecorp.com
Re: OfBiz workflow
Atlassian provides graciously tools like Jira and Confluence to the ASF. Did you know that Jira underneath uses the OFBiz Entity Engine? Jacques Le 19/09/2014 18:20, Ted Byers a écrit : On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: OfBiz workflow
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Atlassian provides graciously tools like Jira and Confluence to the ASF. That suggests a healthy relationship between the open source sector and the commercial sector. That is nice to see. Did you know that Jira underneath uses the OFBiz Entity Engine? No I didn't, How, then, does the Jira feature set compare with the features provided in OFBiz for work flow management and issue tracking? BTW, I have lately taken a closer look at Redmine, and am curious as to how it's feature set (with some of the more interesting Redmine plugins), compares with Jira. Cheers Ted Jacques Le 19/09/2014 18:20, Ted Byers a écrit : On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 -- R.E.(Ted) Byers, Ph.D.,Ed.D.
Re: OfBiz workflow
Forgive the amateur-speak, but would it be ok to invent an abstracted layer of vendor-neutral APIs service bindings such forth that engenders implementation interest among entities like SugarCRM and its competitors? It'd be kind of like what SQL did for the database industry, or what CMIS is doing for content management. How about docker-friendly OFBiz modules components? That coupled with standards at the transport/messaging/whatever layer would make OFBiz very customizable, at least for *NIX admins. Check out this infomercial: https://coreos.com/blog/coreos-just-got-easier-to-try-with-panamax/ In any case, adapt or die. As an Alfresco user, I offer thanks to those considering Activiti workflow integration for OFBiz. Now if I could only make some progress up the learning curve for this project ... On 14-09-19 09:20 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: OfBiz workflow
No one is suggesting using JIRA as part of OFBiz. (As Jacques points out parts of OFBiz are used in JIRA as a development framework.) The suggestion was to use JIRA as an issue tracking system to help manage the Workflow project. The suggested technical base for Workflow is Activiti (read the start of this conversation at the end of this page). Your suggestions about SugarCRM and WordPress are in the right direction but these use underlying technologies (PHP) that are not easy to integrate into a java project. Your comments about not reinventing the wheel are spot on but if you contribute to the Workflow Project, you will have a chance to see how easy it is to integrate two products(OFBiz and Activiti) which may have completely different frameworks under the business layer. Ron On 19/09/2014 12:20 PM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an invitation to others to participate. This might save several weeks of dancing on the ML. Ron On 19/09/2014 8:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Varun044, The path is to work together with the contributors who pledged their willingness to work on this. These are: - Hans Bakker - Mohd Viqar - Rong Nguyen The best place to do this is discuss it in this mailing list. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, varun044 varun...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks you for the prompt reply Pierre. So, if I have to implement workflow in ofbiz now, which is the best path? Should I check into Activiti? If you have some resources on the same, kindly share. Thanks again! -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OfBiz-workflow-tp4655455p4655462.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: OfBiz workflow
Of course Todd. All that you're suggesting is fine, as long as there is a rational argument for doing it (and in many cases there is - I just ask that if I involve myself in a project, I know what that argument is). I am not about to develop a new CRM de novo, when there exists products like SugarCRM. It would be different in only two cases: 1) the existing products are immature and unreliable and the effort to make them adequate for use in production is greater than the cost to start again de movo, and 2) the product is mature and quite usable, but lacks support for a key, and essential feature, and the architecture used makes adding support for the missing feature impracticable. If there is a product that satisfies most of my requirements, I am most likely to develop new code just to add support to that product for the features(s) I require that are not already there. Now, commercial entities, with big bucks to invest, may well want to develop a new entry for a given market, just because they can; but that is based on a perceived opportunity and a belief they can produce a better product than those that currently exist and so out-compete the existing products/providers. But that is a completely different situation that I have not experienced directly, and am not likely to. Cheers Ted On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Todd Thorner tthor...@infotinuum.com wrote: Forgive the amateur-speak, but would it be ok to invent an abstracted layer of vendor-neutral APIs service bindings such forth that engenders implementation interest among entities like SugarCRM and its competitors? It'd be kind of like what SQL did for the database industry, or what CMIS is doing for content management. How about docker-friendly OFBiz modules components? That coupled with standards at the transport/messaging/whatever layer would make OFBiz very customizable, at least for *NIX admins. Check out this infomercial: https://coreos.com/blog/coreos-just-got-easier-to-try-with-panamax/ In any case, adapt or die. As an Alfresco user, I offer thanks to those considering Activiti workflow integration for OFBiz. Now if I could only make some progress up the learning curve for this project ... On 14-09-19 09:20 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include
Re: OfBiz workflow
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: No one is suggesting using JIRA as part of OFBiz. (As Jacques points out parts of OFBiz are used in JIRA as a development framework.) Nor was I. I was just curious about how the workflow features already in OFbiz compared with what is in Jira (or, in other words, what Atlassian added). The suggestion was to use JIRA as an issue tracking system to help manage the Workflow project. Ok, not a stretch there as it is already used by ASF. The suggested technical base for Workflow is Activiti (read the start of this conversation at the end of this page). OK. But then, I'd be interested in a comparison of Jira with Activiti with what is already in OFBiz. ;-) Your suggestions about SugarCRM and WordPress are in the right direction but these use underlying technologies (PHP) that are not easy to integrate into a java project. If it were easy, everyone would have done it. ;-) But seriously, it is not much different from the old days when I routinely mixed FORTRAN, C and C++ (and could do now also with C# and Java. They are just technologies that support web applications. The hardest 'task' would in my view be proper session management, I am, right now, working on a project that mixes web services written in Java, as Java servlets, with a web service written in Perl, and communicating with each other, over TLS, using the SOAP variant of XML. Seriously, this mixing of technologies isn't rocket science. It just needs someone with sufficient experience with all the technologies in the mix. Your comments about not reinventing the wheel are spot on but if you contribute to the Workflow Project, you will have a chance to see how easy it is to integrate two products(OFBiz and Activiti) which may have completely different frameworks under the business layer. I will watch closely (so keep sending updates to this forum), but it may be a year or three before I have time to contribute in any significant way. My work load has gone insane, and I am now routinely putting in 12 to 14 hours a day 7 days a week. I don't think, at my age, I can keep up that pace much longer. Cheers Ted Ron On 19/09/2014 12:20 PM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team can decide on scope, initial tasks, priorities and project management structure. This should be followed by a note to the ML summarizing the discussion and decisions taken and could include an
Re: OfBiz workflow
Thank you, sir, for taking time out of your day to explain a few things. Most of it is penetrating a certain thick skull. On 14-09-19 11:05 AM, Ted Byers wrote: Of course Todd. All that you're suggesting is fine, as long as there is a rational argument for doing it (and in many cases there is - I just ask that if I involve myself in a project, I know what that argument is). I am not about to develop a new CRM de novo, when there exists products like SugarCRM. It would be different in only two cases: 1) the existing products are immature and unreliable and the effort to make them adequate for use in production is greater than the cost to start again de movo, and 2) the product is mature and quite usable, but lacks support for a key, and essential feature, and the architecture used makes adding support for the missing feature impracticable. If there is a product that satisfies most of my requirements, I am most likely to develop new code just to add support to that product for the features(s) I require that are not already there. Now, commercial entities, with big bucks to invest, may well want to develop a new entry for a given market, just because they can; but that is based on a perceived opportunity and a belief they can produce a better product than those that currently exist and so out-compete the existing products/providers. But that is a completely different situation that I have not experienced directly, and am not likely to. Cheers Ted On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Todd Thorner tthor...@infotinuum.com wrote: Forgive the amateur-speak, but would it be ok to invent an abstracted layer of vendor-neutral APIs service bindings such forth that engenders implementation interest among entities like SugarCRM and its competitors? It'd be kind of like what SQL did for the database industry, or what CMIS is doing for content management. How about docker-friendly OFBiz modules components? That coupled with standards at the transport/messaging/whatever layer would make OFBiz very customizable, at least for *NIX admins. Check out this infomercial: https://coreos.com/blog/coreos-just-got-easier-to-try-with-panamax/ In any case, adapt or die. As an Alfresco user, I offer thanks to those considering Activiti workflow integration for OFBiz. Now if I could only make some progress up the learning curve for this project ... On 14-09-19 09:20 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: They are suggesting that you will use the one that OFBiz already has for that purpose. Nothing new to do. Just create the module identification and then the issues that you need in order to define the work on the Workflow project. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Rather, I am just curious as to who pays for the use of this particular commercial product. And, I am curious as to what open source alternatives exist and how they compare. As a software engineer, I HATE reinventing the wheel. Thus, if I were involved in OFBiz much earlier in its development, I would have suggested facilitating use of it WITH SugarCRM (or it's competitor, whose name I have quite forgotten at the moment), instead of developing a whole new contact management system within OFBiz, and for content management, I would have suggested facilitating use of OFBiz WITH Wordpress, again instead of developing a whole new content management system. But then, if the available options for particular tasks is deemed wanting for whatever reason, I'd have no objection to the development of new code, either to try to use these (obviously open source) products while adding code to address perceived deficiencies or to create a competitor de novo (there are sometimes good reasons for doing this too). But, in this present context, I am only interested in the cost of the present practice, and who pays, and the decision making process that led to use of jira instead of the alternatives (if there are viable alternatives). Understanding this may well inform my own decisions in the not too distant future. I am not, at present, interested in recommending changing anything, especially if those who are actually doing the work are happy with what is presently in place. Cheers Ted Rn On 19/09/2014 11:34 AM, Ted Byers wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Typically, this sort of thing is done in Jira - which provides a set of collaboration tools and a means for voting on the change. Jira is proprietary; so who pays for it? Or, is it free for open source projects, non-profit organizations or educational institutions? Is there not an open source equivalent? Cheers Ted Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/19/2014 2:17 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: I would suggest an virtual meeting as an alternative so that the team
Supplier set for product not using main setting for auto assign
Not sure if it is supposed to use the setting, but when you assign a supplier to a product you can do multiple suppliers. I find it a bit odd that it lets you do multiple main suppliers (I would think it should only let you select one). But even with just one set as main, when you do a generate requirements using MRP it does not consider if one is set as main (I would have thought that is why there was the setting)? Maybe I am missing something, but seems like something is a bit amiss. I will probably modify both items (only allow one main, soif they pick main it unsets any others set as main) Have it use the main if auto assign is used or it is generated by MRP. - Joel Fradkin -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Supplier-set-for-product-not-using-main-setting-for-auto-assign-tp4655498.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OfBiz workflow
Le 19/09/2014 20:16, Ted Byers a écrit : On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: No one is suggesting using JIRA as part of OFBiz. (As Jacques points out parts of OFBiz are used in JIRA as a development framework.) Nor was I. I was just curious about how the workflow features already in OFbiz compared with what is in Jira (or, in other words, what Atlassian added). https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Is+OFBiz+for+Me#IsOFBizforMe-OFBizWorkflow(EDAArchitecture) The suggestion was to use JIRA as an issue tracking system to help manage the Workflow project. Ok, not a stretch there as it is already used by ASF. Adrian suggested to use the ASF Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ) to handle the communication between the persons interested working on mixing OFBiz with Activiti The suggested technical base for Workflow is Activiti (read the start of this conversation at the end of this page). OK. But then, I'd be interested in a comparison of Jira with Activiti with what is already in OFBiz. ;-) OFBiz uses EDA as explained in the link above. Jira workflow is limited to transitions between status. Activiti is a real workflow engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activiti_%28software%29 Jacques
Is there a reason CustomTimePeriod Date types are not Timestamp?
Does anyone know why CustomTimePeriod fromDate and thruDate are of type date instead of timestamp? Because the fields are of type date, it causes issues when joining the it for date comparison for view-entities. For example: view-entity entity-name=OrderHeaderAndCustomTimePeriod package-name= member-entity entity-alias=OH entity-name=OrderHeader/ member-entity entity-alias=CTP entity-name=CustomTimePeriod/ alias-all entity-alias=OH/ alias-all entity-alias=CTP/ entity-condition condition-expr field-name=orderDate entity-alias=OH operator=greater-equals rel-field-name=fromDate rel-entity-alias=CTP/ condition-expr field-name=orderDate entity-alias=OH operator=less-equals rel-field-name=thruDate rel-entity-alias=CTP/ /entity-condition /view-entity The problem occurs when the OrderHeader.orderDate falls on the last day of the CustomTimePeriod.thruDate because the CustomTimePeriod.thruDate is converted to Timestamp but with time 00:00:00.000. Changing the CustomTimePeriod Date types to Timestamp seems like the easiest but I'm sure Accounting code will have to be changed.
Re: Supplier set for product not using main setting for auto assign
Joel, See my comments inline Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jfrad...@styleline.com jfrad...@styleline.com wrote: Not sure if it is supposed to use the setting, but when you assign a supplier to a product you can do multiple suppliers. That is a good thing. It might be so that the product you buy can be purchased from different suppliers. I find it a bit odd that it lets you do multiple main suppliers (I would think it should only let you select one). That is a bit odd, but it is common to have more preferred suppliers for your critical components, to minimise the risk of getting out of stock. But, it is also common to have some ranking applied to the preferred suppliers based on company specific ranking parameters. But even with just one set as main, when you do a generate requirements using MRP it does not consider if one is set as main (I would have thought that is why there was the setting)? Maybe I am missing something, but seems like something is a bit amiss. You are correct. There is something missing. Though you can set the ranking 10_MAIN_SUPPL and 90_ALT_SUPPL (with the default data set, which you can expand), there is no code that uses such parameters. I will probably modify both items (only allow one main, soif they pick main it unsets any others set as main) Have it use the main if auto assign is used or it is generated by MRP. - Joel Fradkin -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Supplier-set-for-product-not-using-main-setting-for-auto-assign-tp4655498.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OfBiz workflow
Thanks Jacques, That is useful and appreciated. Ted Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. Original Message From: Jacques Le Roux Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:27 PM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Reply To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: OfBiz workflow Le 19/09/2014 20:16, Ted Byers a écrit : On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: No one is suggesting using JIRA as part of OFBiz. (As Jacques points out parts of OFBiz are used in JIRA as a development framework.) Nor was I. I was just curious about how the workflow features already in OFbiz compared with what is in Jira (or, in other words, what Atlassian added). https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Is+OFBiz+for+Me#IsOFBizforMe-OFBizWorkflow(EDAArchitecture) The suggestion was to use JIRA as an issue tracking system to help manage the Workflow project. Ok, not a stretch there as it is already used by ASF. Adrian suggested to use the ASF Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ) to handle the communication between the persons interested working on mixing OFBiz with Activiti The suggested technical base for Workflow is Activiti (read the start of this conversation at the end of this page). OK. But then, I'd be interested in a comparison of Jira with Activiti with what is already in OFBiz. ;-) OFBiz uses EDA as explained in the link above. Jira workflow is limited to transitions between status. Activiti is a real workflow engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activiti_%28software%29 Jacques
Re: Is there a reason CustomTimePeriod Date types are not Timestamp?
Hi Christian, this is a known issue and there is already a ticket with some comments in it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5740 Jacopo On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:16 PM, Christian Carlow christian.car...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know why CustomTimePeriod fromDate and thruDate are of type date instead of timestamp? Because the fields are of type date, it causes issues when joining the it for date comparison for view-entities. For example: view-entity entity-name=OrderHeaderAndCustomTimePeriod package-name= member-entity entity-alias=OH entity-name=OrderHeader/ member-entity entity-alias=CTP entity-name=CustomTimePeriod/ alias-all entity-alias=OH/ alias-all entity-alias=CTP/ entity-condition condition-expr field-name=orderDate entity-alias=OH operator=greater-equals rel-field-name=fromDate rel-entity-alias=CTP/ condition-expr field-name=orderDate entity-alias=OH operator=less-equals rel-field-name=thruDate rel-entity-alias=CTP/ /entity-condition /view-entity The problem occurs when the OrderHeader.orderDate falls on the last day of the CustomTimePeriod.thruDate because the CustomTimePeriod.thruDate is converted to Timestamp but with time 00:00:00.000. Changing the CustomTimePeriod Date types to Timestamp seems like the easiest but I'm sure Accounting code will have to be changed.
Demo trunk is not accessible
Demo trunk is down, I am getting blank page while accessing : http://demo-trunk-ofbiz.apache.org/ordermgr Thanks Regards — Deepak Dixit smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
