Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Ryan Foster]

> 
> Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix it". 
> That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not necessarily 
> obsolete.

It was never suggested that the Flat Grey Theme was broken or obsolete, just 
that it could stand a refresh.  I can site numerous studies that show that how 
something looks affects how it is perceived, but just a take a look at

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/indefenseofeyecandy

Having a theme that looks like it hasn't been touched in years affects the 
perception of the project as a whole.  Think about it; would you buy a Ferrari 
engine if it was inside a Prius body frame?  Can you simply just sew a Gucci 
label onto a t-shirt you bought from Walmart and sell for it $500?  Like it or 
not, perception and presentation go a long way toward credibility.

Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
cont...@ryanlfoster.com
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 21, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Ryan:
> Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ - who 
> isn't a commiter - I don't think)  listens to anyone from the outside.
> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".
> 
> Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix it". 
> That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not necessarily 
> obsolete.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:
>> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two 
>> weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and 
>> that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete 
>> overhaul.  We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - 
>> that's it).  This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without 
>> discussion and debate.  We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal 
>> and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>> 
>> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of 
>> December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to 
>> work.  if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS 
>> changes.  Also, if you look at the JIRA issue 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots 
>> and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January.  
>> Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>> 
>> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there 
>> should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme.  Simply blindly 
>> following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless 
>> software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of 
>> developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>> 
>> 
>> Ryan L. Foster
>> 801.671.0769
>> cont...@ryanlfoster.com
>> ryanlfoster.com
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
>>> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> Ruth
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
 That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
 
 The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
 production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not 
 consider those production systems when proposing changes.
 
 -Adrian
 
 --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman   wrote:
> you will find that the ofbiz
> developer group first priority is to change
> before considering the effect on production systemm using
> offbiz.
> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
> they do.
> 
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
> 
> Specialtymarket.com
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> 
> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>> But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
> on flatgrey, and their
>> employees are used to it.  At least keep it
> around as flatgrey_old.
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
> developer community decided to
>>> update it.
>>> 
>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
> are welcome to replace the
>>> new one with it.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
 I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
> normal flatgrey theme has
 been completely redefined.  What
> happened?  I thought it was actually
 the best theme that was very well

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

In addition to the other arguments to dispute this claim, have you considered 
that most committers earn a living using OFBiz and so they survive by listening 
to people from the outside.

Based on that you might adjust your attack to say that committers don't listen 
to anyone from the outside unless they give them money, but that is also not 
true. No one is paid to read the mailing lists (not that I know of anyway...), 
but that is certainly commonly done by committers and is the most common form 
of listening (probably even more significant than being paid to listen to a 
client).

And there is far more. In fact, many of the ideas in the framework and the 
applications came from users via the mailing lists and for the most part 
without any sort of financial relationship.

How do you think this whole thing works? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd 
appreciate an answer to accompany your attacks. How do YOU think things get 
done in this project?

-David


On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Ryan:
> Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ - who 
> isn't a commiter - I don't think)  listens to anyone from the outside.
> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".
> 
> Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix it". 
> That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not necessarily 
> obsolete.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:
>> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two 
>> weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and 
>> that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete 
>> overhaul.  We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - 
>> that's it).  This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without 
>> discussion and debate.  We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal 
>> and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>> 
>> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of 
>> December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to 
>> work.  if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS 
>> changes.  Also, if you look at the JIRA issue 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots 
>> and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January.  
>> Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>> 
>> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there 
>> should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme.  Simply blindly 
>> following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless 
>> software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of 
>> developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>> 
>> 
>> Ryan L. Foster
>> 801.671.0769
>> cont...@ryanlfoster.com
>> ryanlfoster.com
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
>>> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> Ruth
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
 That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
 
 The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
 production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not 
 consider those production systems when proposing changes.
 
 -Adrian
 
 --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman   wrote:
> you will find that the ofbiz
> developer group first priority is to change
> before considering the effect on production systemm using
> offbiz.
> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
> they do.
> 
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
> 
> Specialtymarket.com
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> 
> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>> But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
> on flatgrey, and their
>> employees are used to it.  At least keep it
> around as flatgrey_old.
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
> developer community decided to
>>> update it.
>>> 
>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
> are welcome to replace the
>>> new one with it.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
 I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
> normal flatgrey theme has
 been completely redefined.  What
> happened?  I t

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Ryan Foster]

Really Ruth? Really?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  I am not a committer or a 
PMC member.  I am an "outsider" individual contributor with an active interest 
in moving the project forward.  There is not a single committed line of code in 
the whole framework with my name directly attached to it, but I yet over the 
years I have still managed to make some key contributions to the project 
through patches, discussions, collaborations, design etc. such as the 
BizznessTime theme, the redesign of the public facing website, one page 
checkout, the Dropping Crumbs theme, the Flat Grey theme... my list is pretty 
long.

So instead in being abrasive and disrespectful, why don't you try doing what I 
do.  Treat the other members of this community with respect, communicate 
frankly and openly, and accept feedback, criticism and collaboration without 
getting defensive and insulting people.  I consider people like Jacques, 
Adrian, Bruno, Anil, and Jacopo my friends and colleagues and I seem to have no 
problem at all getting them to listen to me.
  
Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
cont...@ryanlfoster.com
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 21, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Ryan:
> Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ - who 
> isn't a commiter - I don't think)  listens to anyone from the outside.
> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".
> 
> Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix it". 
> That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not necessarily 
> obsolete.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:
>> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two 
>> weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and 
>> that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete 
>> overhaul.  We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - 
>> that's it).  This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without 
>> discussion and debate.  We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal 
>> and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>> 
>> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of 
>> December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to 
>> work.  if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS 
>> changes.  Also, if you look at the JIRA issue 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots 
>> and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January.  
>> Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>> 
>> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there 
>> should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme.  Simply blindly 
>> following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless 
>> software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of 
>> developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>> 
>> 
>> Ryan L. Foster
>> 801.671.0769
>> cont...@ryanlfoster.com
>> ryanlfoster.com
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
>>> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> Ruth
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
 That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
 
 The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
 production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not 
 consider those production systems when proposing changes.
 
 -Adrian
 
 --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman   wrote:
> you will find that the ofbiz
> developer group first priority is to change
> before considering the effect on production systemm using
> offbiz.
> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
> they do.
> 
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
> 
> Specialtymarket.com
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> 
> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>> But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
> on flatgrey, and their
>> employees are used to it.  At least keep it
> around as flatgrey_old.
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
> developer community decided to
>>> update it.
>>> 
>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
> are welcome to replace the
>>> new one with it.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrot

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Steve Fatula]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

> 
> 
> It sounds to me like you saw a shiny new version, didn't test it before 
> deploying, wiped out the previous deployment in the process, then had users 
> complaining that something had changed... something you should have caught 
> before deploying it in the first place.
> 
> As for my position, I'm just an outside observer with some common interests 
> to everyone here.  One of my interests is that these guys don't get pissed 
> off and quit developing it at all.  No more, no less.
> 
> Brian

Couldn't say it any better, as another outside observer who just uses the 
product. Thanks to the devs for all their time and efforts.

Steve

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".

Ruth, are you a committer to OFBiz?  On any open source projects anywhere?

Nobody has an obligation to serve you or your needs.  To say this kind of thing 
once might be construed constructively where people are interested in 
self-improvement, but this is going too far.  

I don't know anything about the PMC, but *you* should find a support company to 
give your money to and let them advocate in your interests.  

Most people do not get so angry about stuff like this unless they are losing 
money.  If you are losing money because of these (and possibly other) changes, 
then that lost money could have been better spent on a committer who will watch 
out for your interests and make sure things run smoothly.  Everyone wins in 
that case.

If you are not losing money by these changes, it completely escapes me why you 
care.  One cannot both want new features, then make personal attacks when they 
are not exactly what someone wants.  Unless, again, they are paying for support 
to have them developed.

It sounds to me like you saw a shiny new version, didn't test it before 
deploying, wiped out the previous deployment in the process, then had users 
complaining that something had changed... something you should have caught 
before deploying it in the first place.

As for my position, I'm just an outside observer with some common interests to 
everyone here.  One of my interests is that these guys don't get pissed off and 
quit developing it at all.  No more, no less.

Brian

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Scott Gray]

What utter rubbish, almost every time I want to make a non-trivial change the 
first thing I do is write an email to the dev list to gain input.  Plenty of 
other committers do the exact same thing.  If you feel you need proof of this 
then it wouldn't be difficult to give you examples.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 22/01/2011, at 7:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Ryan:
> Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ - who 
> isn't a commiter - I don't think)  listens to anyone from the outside.
> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".
> 
> Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix it". 
> That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not necessarily 
> obsolete.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:
>> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two 
>> weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and 
>> that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete 
>> overhaul.  We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - 
>> that's it).  This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without 
>> discussion and debate.  We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal 
>> and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>> 
>> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of 
>> December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to 
>> work.  if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS 
>> changes.  Also, if you look at the JIRA issue 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots 
>> and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January.  
>> Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>> 
>> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there 
>> should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme.  Simply blindly 
>> following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless 
>> software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of 
>> developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>> 
>> 
>> Ryan L. Foster
>> 801.671.0769
>> cont...@ryanlfoster.com
>> ryanlfoster.com
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
>>> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> Ruth
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
 That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
 
 The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
 production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not 
 consider those production systems when proposing changes.
 
 -Adrian
 
 --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman   wrote:
> you will find that the ofbiz
> developer group first priority is to change
> before considering the effect on production systemm using
> offbiz.
> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
> they do.
> 
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
> 
> Specialtymarket.com
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> 
> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>> But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
> on flatgrey, and their
>> employees are used to it.  At least keep it
> around as flatgrey_old.
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
> developer community decided to
>>> update it.
>>> 
>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
> are welcome to replace the
>>> new one with it.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
 I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
> normal flatgrey theme has
 been completely redefined.  What
> happened?  I thought it was actually
 the best theme that was very well
> organized.  Is there a way to get it
 back?
 
 
 
>> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Ruth Hoffman]

Ryan:
Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ - 
who isn't a commiter - I don't think)  listens to anyone from the outside.

Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".

Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix 
it". That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not 
necessarily obsolete.


Best Regards,
Ruth

On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:

While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks ago when 
Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and that is what it was, not a 
redesign, not a new theme, not a complete overhaul.  We changed the header and footer, 
and made a few CSS changes - that's it).  This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done 
without discussion and debate.  We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and 
decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".

Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of December, 
asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to work.  if you ask me, 
24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS changes.  Also, if you 
look at the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 
screenshots and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January.  
Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.

I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should 
stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme.  Simply blindly following 
a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless software that was 
cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm 
looking at you IE6.


Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
cont...@ryanlfoster.com
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:


Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the 
saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
Just my 2 cents.
Ruth

On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.

The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production 
systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those 
production systems when proposing changes.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman   wrote:

you will find that the ofbiz
developer group first priority is to change
before considering the effect on production systemm using
offbiz.
something I lobby against, but has little effect.
so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
they do.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz

on flatgrey, and their

employees are used to it.  At least keep it

around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum

wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the

developer community decided to

update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you

are welcome to replace the

new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the

normal flatgrey theme has

been completely redefined.  What

happened?  I thought it was actually

the best theme that was very well

organized.  Is there a way to get it

back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Jacques Le Roux]

For those interested here is the thread (58 messages exchanged)
http://markmail.org/message/j25og4np7t5xkta2

Jacques

Ryan Foster wrote:

While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks 
ago when Adrian and I can began working on
refreshing the theme (and that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, 
not a complete overhaul.  We changed the header
and footer, and made a few CSS changes - that's it).  This wasn't done in a 
vacuum and it wasn't done without discussion and
debate.  We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off". 


Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of 
December, asked for feedback, suggestions and
participation, and we went to work.  if you ask me, 24 days is a really big 
"vacuum" for a couple of CSS changes.  Also, if you
look at the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there 
were 9 screenshots and 8 separate patches posted
between the 4th and the 14th of January.  Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.   


I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should 
stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a
theme.  Simply blindly following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you 
outdated, useless software that was cutting edge 10
years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.  



Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
cont...@ryanlfoster.com
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:


Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a vacuum. 
As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a
clue". Just my 2 cents.
Ruth

On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.

The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production 
systems to maintain. It is silly to think they
would not consider those production systems when proposing changes. 


-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:

you will find that the ofbiz
developer group first priority is to change
before considering the effect on production systemm using
offbiz.
something I lobby against, but has little effect.
so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
they do.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz

on flatgrey, and their

employees are used to it.  At least keep it

around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum

wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the

developer community decided to

update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you

are welcome to replace the

new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the

normal flatgrey theme has

been completely redefined.  What

happened?  I thought it was actually

the best theme that was very well

organized.  Is there a way to get it

back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Ryan Foster]

While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks 
ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and that is 
what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete overhaul.  We 
changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - that's it).  This 
wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without discussion and debate.  We 
didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and decide "Hey let's get rid 
of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".  

Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of 
December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to 
work.  if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS 
changes.  Also, if you look at the JIRA issue 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots and 
8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January.  Anyone 
could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.

I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should 
stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme.  Simply blindly following 
a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless software that was 
cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm 
looking at you IE6.


Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
cont...@ryanlfoster.com
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>> 
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider 
>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>> 
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
 But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>> on flatgrey, and their
 employees are used to it.  At least keep it
>>> around as flatgrey_old.
 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> wrote:
> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>> developer community decided to
> update it.
> 
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>> are welcome to replace the
> new one with it.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>> been completely redefined.  What
>>> happened?  I thought it was actually
>> the best theme that was very well
>>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
>> back?
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:15 AM, David E Jones wrote:

> Have you ever worked with a system that was architected in this way?

I'm building it now, been working on it ever since letting go of OFBiz and 
finding my weak efforts to make start such a drastic rewrite were going to take 
more effort than I was willing to champion.  I spoke up about it here and now 
because there was an opportunity to do so.  

It's not "easy", it's not "hard" either.  I think with the foundation in place, 
developers would have no problem with it.  I'm sure I do not understand all the 
issues that some OFBiz deployments have, but I can't imagine that I can't cook 
a solution if I came up against the problem either.  

Brian

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Scott Gray]

Hi Ruth,

Hope you are well.  Out of curiosity, how did everything go at ApacheCon?

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 21/01/2011, at 4:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>> 
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider 
>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>> 
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
 But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>> on flatgrey, and their
 employees are used to it.  At least keep it
>>> around as flatgrey_old.
 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> wrote:
> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>> developer community decided to
> update it.
> 
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>> are welcome to replace the
> new one with it.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>> been completely redefined.  What
>>> happened?  I thought it was actually
>> the best theme that was very well
>>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
>> back?
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[BJ Freeman]

just so we are on the same page is this what you call ESB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_service_bus
I note this is similar to the Windows Operating systemm.
Since ofbiz is already pushing memory limits not sure it could handle 
such a system and keep speed.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Brian Topping sent the following on 1/20/2011 11:53 PM:


On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:


Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with OFBiz 
that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same thing, and 
so there are constant fights about what should go into the single pot?

Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of separate 
"pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are driven by 
different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to different themes, 
different UIs, different business domains, etc.


This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.

Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB.  I 
really like what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and 
domain models, and lose interest when I am required to use a tightly-coupled UI 
with it.

I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I 
would choke and turn blue before using them.  We haven't even started 
considering some of the cool stuff available with Grails or what kind of UI 
could be autogenerated from messages.  And whether I would adopt any of these 
UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository (i.e. 
if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)

There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so 
people can integrate.  That's what an ESB is all about.

When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are 
running OSGi or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me problems, I 
can deal with them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing decision to make.

When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can 
convince stakeholders that they are future-proofed to some greater degree.  
Every company that buys into the architecture expands the entire ecosystem in 
the process, everyone wins.

Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue 
with what makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a for 
a far better and more portable representation than anything we could cook 
ourselves.  OMG standards for metadata, such as CWM [1] are conceptually far 
more powerful than anything we could dream up on our own and have existing tool 
support, which is better than starting from zero.  Even if we just modeled our 
own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current unique method, 
however open.

If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain 
through such means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions.  
As well, other projects will start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further 
increasing the connectedness and vitality of the ecosystem.

I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like 
this old architecture is holding everyone back.  At some point, the pressure on 
it will be too great to resist even the combined inertia of the available OFBiz 
solutions, it's just a matter of when.

Brian

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones 
> wrote:
> >> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and
> Moqui.
> >>> 
> >>> Speaking personally (and I stress personally -
> I'm not
> >> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that
> sort of
> >> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of
> both of
> >> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm
> also very
> >> familiar with the projects themselves.
> >>> 
> >>> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
> >> established community) in frustration and start
> another
> >> project. It's hard to find a migration path that
> continues
> >> to embrace new technologies without causing undue
> hardship
> >> on the existing installed base.
> >>> 
> >>> It would be better if we could find a middle
> ground -
> >> a compromise - that keeps the talent and
> innovation in a
> >> single project, instead of scattering it into
> competing
> >> projects.
> >> 
> >> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't
> one of the
> >> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big
> pot, but
> >> not all users want the same thing, and so there
> are constant
> >> fights about what should go into the single pot? 
> >> 
> >> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable
> framework
> >> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of
> it that
> >> address different audiences and are driven by
> different
> >> groups with different needs/wants? That would
> apply to
> >> different themes, different UIs, different
> business domains,
> >> etc.
> > 
> > That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that
> has been around for 10 years and has a considerable user
> base and developer base?
> > 
> > OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> In a way they are. The whole point is to not have anything
> like a single project. There would be a framework project,
> and a data model project, and then everything else (themes,
> applications, reusable elements for use in applications,
> etc, etc) would all be separate projects.
> 
> The point is to grow an ecosystem on a strong foundation
> and encourage people to do there own thing in separate
> projects that easily work with others built on the same
> foundation.
> 
> The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons),
> which is something that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without
> splitting the project into dozens of small parts I don't
> think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one place
> to get everything I need or want is just not realistic and
> results in the tragedy of the commons.

We have common goals, but two different approaches. Your approach is to scrap 
everything and start over. My approach is to bundle up pieces of OFBiz into 
"pots" that can be spun off into separate projects (ie. conversion framework, 
temporal expressions). For example, I have a project I'm working on now that 
desperately needs a stand-alone entity engine - but the existing OFBiz entity 
engine code is too tangled with everything else. The service engine could be 
bundled up as a separate project and maybe run on JMS - so it can be integrated 
with third-party applications.

>From my perspective, OFBiz contains valuable technologies that could be spun 
>off into separate projects. We just need to think of it more as a collection 
>of libraries. I believe that approach would be far more constructive than 
>having other projects competing with OFBiz.

-Adrian



  

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

Brian,

If I understand correctly you are proposing an architecture where the UI ONLY 
accesses the data store through remote service calls (ie all reads and writes 
go through a remote service) and in effect the database and services would live 
in one server and the UI would live in another and access it through some sort 
of ESB? Basically the UI server and the data/logic server would only 
communicate through these common standard XML documents sent over the network.

Have you ever worked with a system that was architected in this way?

These standards are great, but are really meant for integration between 
separate systems. I've definitely heard of the idea of doing things this way, 
quite a lot in fact, but I've never seen an enterprise system architected in 
this way. There are certainly organizations that have an enterprise 
architecture where they try to push everything through an ESB, but only the 
messages that need to go between systems and not every little thing that a 
system might do internally.

If you, or anyone, has experiences with that it would be interesting to hear 
about.

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:53 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

> 
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> 
>> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with 
>> OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same 
>> thing, and so there are constant fights about what should go into the single 
>> pot? 
>> 
>> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of 
>> separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and 
>> are driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply 
>> to different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.
> 
> This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.  
> 
> Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB.  I 
> really like what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and 
> domain models, and lose interest when I am required to use a tightly-coupled 
> UI with it.  
> 
> I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I 
> would choke and turn blue before using them.  We haven't even started 
> considering some of the cool stuff available with Grails or what kind of UI 
> could be autogenerated from messages.  And whether I would adopt any of these 
> UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository (i.e. 
> if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)
> 
> There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so 
> people can integrate.  That's what an ESB is all about.  
> 
> When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are 
> running OSGi or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me 
> problems, I can deal with them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing 
> decision to make.  
> 
> When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can 
> convince stakeholders that they are future-proofed to some greater degree.  
> Every company that buys into the architecture expands the entire ecosystem in 
> the process, everyone wins.
> 
> Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue 
> with what makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a 
> for a far better and more portable representation than anything we could cook 
> ourselves.  OMG standards for metadata, such as CWM [1] are conceptually far 
> more powerful than anything we could dream up on our own and have existing 
> tool support, which is better than starting from zero.  Even if we just 
> modeled our own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current 
> unique method, however open.  
> 
> If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain 
> through such means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions.  
> As well, other projects will start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further 
> increasing the connectedness and vitality of the ecosystem.
> 
> I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like 
> this old architecture is holding everyone back.  At some point, the pressure 
> on it will be too great to resist even the combined inertia of the available 
> OFBiz solutions, it's just a matter of when.
> 
> Brian
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something 
> that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens 
> of small parts I don't think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one 
> place to get everything I need or want is just not realistic and results in 
> the tragedy of the commons.

My previous paragraphs of text are summarized by these two sentences...

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with 
> OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same 
> thing, and so there are constant fights about what should go into the single 
> pot? 
> 
> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of 
> separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are 
> driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to 
> different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.

This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.  

Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB.  I 
really like what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and 
domain models, and lose interest when I am required to use a tightly-coupled UI 
with it.  

I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I 
would choke and turn blue before using them.  We haven't even started 
considering some of the cool stuff available with Grails or what kind of UI 
could be autogenerated from messages.  And whether I would adopt any of these 
UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository (i.e. 
if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)

There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so 
people can integrate.  That's what an ESB is all about.  

When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are 
running OSGi or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me 
problems, I can deal with them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing 
decision to make.  

When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can 
convince stakeholders that they are future-proofed to some greater degree.  
Every company that buys into the architecture expands the entire ecosystem in 
the process, everyone wins.

Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue 
with what makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a for 
a far better and more portable representation than anything we could cook 
ourselves.  OMG standards for metadata, such as CWM [1] are conceptually far 
more powerful than anything we could dream up on our own and have existing tool 
support, which is better than starting from zero.  Even if we just modeled our 
own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current unique method, 
however open.  

If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain 
through such means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions.  
As well, other projects will start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further 
increasing the connectedness and vitality of the ecosystem.

I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like 
this old architecture is holding everyone back.  At some point, the pressure on 
it will be too great to resist even the combined inertia of the available OFBiz 
solutions, it's just a matter of when.

Brian

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> 
>>> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
>>> 
>>> Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not
>> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that sort of
>> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of both of
>> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very
>> familiar with the projects themselves.
>>> 
>>> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
>> established community) in frustration and start another
>> project. It's hard to find a migration path that continues
>> to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship
>> on the existing installed base.
>>> 
>>> It would be better if we could find a middle ground -
>> a compromise - that keeps the talent and innovation in a
>> single project, instead of scattering it into competing
>> projects.
>> 
>> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the
>> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but
>> not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
>> fights about what should go into the single pot? 
>> 
>> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework
>> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that
>> address different audiences and are driven by different
>> groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to
>> different themes, different UIs, different business domains,
>> etc.
> 
> That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that has been around for 10 
> years and has a considerable user base and developer base?
> 
> OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.

In a way they are. The whole point is to not have anything like a single 
project. There would be a framework project, and a data model project, and then 
everything else (themes, applications, reusable elements for use in 
applications, etc, etc) would all be separate projects.

The point is to grow an ecosystem on a strong foundation and encourage people 
to do there own thing in separate projects that easily work with others built 
on the same foundation.

The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something that 
OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens of small 
parts I don't think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one place to 
get everything I need or want is just not realistic and results in the tragedy 
of the commons.

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
> > 
> > Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not
> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that sort of
> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of both of
> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very
> familiar with the projects themselves.
> > 
> > It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
> established community) in frustration and start another
> project. It's hard to find a migration path that continues
> to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship
> on the existing installed base.
> > 
> > It would be better if we could find a middle ground -
> a compromise - that keeps the talent and innovation in a
> single project, instead of scattering it into competing
> projects.
> 
> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the
> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but
> not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
> fights about what should go into the single pot? 
> 
> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework
> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that
> address different audiences and are driven by different
> groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to
> different themes, different UIs, different business domains,
> etc.

That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that has been around for 10 
years and has a considerable user base and developer base?

OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.

-Adrian




  

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
> 
> Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not speaking on behalf of 
> the OFBiz community) that sort of thing is counter-productive. I know the 
> authors of both of those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very 
> familiar with the projects themselves.
> 
> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an established community) in 
> frustration and start another project. It's hard to find a migration path 
> that continues to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship on 
> the existing installed base.
> 
> It would be better if we could find a middle ground - a compromise - that 
> keeps the talent and innovation in a single project, instead of scattering it 
> into competing projects.

Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with OFBiz 
that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same thing, and 
so there are constant fights about what should go into the single pot? 

Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of 
separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are 
driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to 
different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:30 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

> 
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
>> 
>> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?
> 
> Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the existing system in 
> legacy mode and start a new project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz 
> is it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects is it doesn't take 
> advantage of any recent packaging technologies like Spring or OSGi or 
> presentation technologies that would work well with recent browser 
> capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal solution remains one that was 
> architected before any of these technologies were mature.

When you say this do you mean to start over and rebuild the OFBiz 
business/application functionality on an existing full-featured framework (or 
as close as current frameworks come to that...) like the JBoss Seam stack?

Or do you mean to create a new framework using some of the newer tools that are 
available? If so, could you be more specific about the tools you'd like to you? 
You mentioned presentation technologies, which ones do you like?

In a way I'm doing something that might be like what you are suggesting 
(depending on details of what you had in mind). Right now there is no framework 
that uses the same concepts and design goals as the OFBiz Framework, but there 
are many new tools it could use and many cleanups and redesigns the framework 
could use, so I have started a new framework project called Moqui 
(www.moqui.org) that is a refresh of the OFBiz Framework as a stand-alone 
package (and it uses Groovy a LOT as the default language for expressions, XML 
actions are translated to Groovy, and the framework itself is implemented in 
Groovy). 

Once that is further along I plan to start a _separate_ project that has a data 
model and some basic business services. And once that is further along I plan 
to start, or work with others to start, a series of domain-specific application 
projects that are all build on the same data model and framework, and can share 
data with other applications and run in the same container and so on.

Anyway... in spite of actions in that direction I'd be interested in seeing 
more thoughts that people have on the topic.

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.

Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not speaking on behalf of 
the OFBiz community) that sort of thing is counter-productive. I know the 
authors of both of those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very 
familiar with the projects themselves.

It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an established community) in 
frustration and start another project. It's hard to find a migration path that 
continues to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship on the 
existing installed base.

It would be better if we could find a middle ground - a compromise - that keeps 
the talent and innovation in a single project, instead of scattering it into 
competing projects.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Brian Topping  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones 
> wrote:
> >> What the project needs is cutoff points at major
> revision
> >> releases after which attempts at backward
> compatibility are
> >> totally abandoned in favor of making something
> better.
> > 
> > Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new
> thread?
> 
> Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the
> existing system in legacy mode and start a new
> project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is
> it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects
> is it doesn't take advantage of any recent packaging
> technologies like Spring or OSGi or presentation
> technologies that would work well with recent browser
> capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal
> solution remains one that was architected before any of
> these technologies were mature.
> 
> Brian

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
> 
> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the existing system in 
legacy mode and start a new project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is 
it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects is it doesn't take 
advantage of any recent packaging technologies like Spring or OSGi or 
presentation technologies that would work well with recent browser 
capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal solution remains one that was 
architected before any of these technologies were mature.

Brian

Re: Tossing Backward Compatibility (was Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?)

[Adrian Crum]

Cool - thanks.

I agree there are a lot of things that can be changed that will improve the 
project greatly - but at the same time those changes will break backward 
compatibility. I'm sure many of the developers have lists like David's that 
contain things they would like to change, but they are hesitant to do so 
because it might break backward compatibility.

Before this thread gets inundated with developer's wish lists, I would like to 
suggest that we address one single simple issue first:

Would you, as an end user of OFBiz, knowing that the OFBiz project could be 
improved greatly - but at the cost of some backward incompatibility - accept 
the changes? If yes, how often would backwards-incompatible changes be 
acceptable? David suggested major revisions. Is that reasonable? Any other 
ideas?

I'm asking end users - not committers or PMC members (we've already had this 
discussion).

My experience with the developer community has convinced me that they are open 
to the opinions and suggestions of end users. So let's discuss, debate, reach 
an agreement, and move forward from there.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones 
> wrote:
> >> What the project needs is cutoff points at major
> revision
> >> releases after which attempts at backward
> compatibility are
> >> totally abandoned in favor of making something
> better.
> > 
> > Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new
> thread?
> 
> Okay, here's the new thread.
> 
> To kick it off there are probably lots of facets of this to
> discuss, but the biggest question (IMO) is: what will we get
> rid of? Another way of looking at that is: how will we
> decide what to get rid of?
> 
> This gets even trickier as time goes on and new things are
> introduced that are alternatives to old things. One example
> is the FTL macro based widget renderers... the old ones can
> go away. Another would by the Query Builder that Scott was
> working on (OFBIZ-4053), and that could result in getting
> rid of a bunch of stuff in the Delegator and
> GenericDelegator. There are also hundreds of methods that
> simply the same as another method in the same class but with
> fewer arguments and defaults for the missing arguments, and
> tons of those can and should go away (many are there for
> backward compatibility only).
> 
> But is any of this really doable in OFBiz given desires and
> priorities of the community?
> 
> Heck, we have complaints about EVERYTHING. Constant
> complaints about every little change. If all of the
> delegator.find* methods are suddenly gone... just imagine
> the complaints (well, not to mention the refactoring of code
> in OFBiz itself!).
> 
> We have complaints about formatting changes in code. We
> have complaints about any and all refactoring changes
> (moving code, renaming, splitting up or combining methods or
> classes).
> 
> What about getting rid of the dozens of totally useless
> util classes in OFBiz? Most of them could (and maybe should)
> be tossed in favor of other open source stuff, or even
> better in favor of new features in Java or that are handled
> inherently in Groovy or other tools used a lot in OFBiz.
> 
> How about making things more consistent in OFBiz by using
> groovy for all expressions and such? We could get rid of the
> BSH defaults, the UEL stuff, and so on. Yeah, I know a lot
> of work has gone into these things... but consider the state
> of things now and the pain involved in using some of these
> cumbersome tools.
> 
> Of course, is this even doable... and worth it? Could we
> even retest all of the code that would be affected by these
> lower level changes? Could we do this without huge efforts
> in branches? Because the framework and applications are tied
> together we can't easily advance the framework freely and
> then once we like it do a feature freeze and start getting
> the applications/etc to catch up.
> 
> Stepping back I guess the real question is: can we even do
> these sorts of things at this point in the life of the
> project?
> 
> The jQuery branch is an interesting example. I think that
> worked because it was a change with relatively few touch
> points, and only a couple of people were interested in it so
> everyone else left them alone while they worked on it. But
> what about bigger changes that result in a need for changes
> in thousands of lines of existing code?
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 


  

Tossing Backward Compatibility (was Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?)

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
> 
> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

Okay, here's the new thread.

To kick it off there are probably lots of facets of this to discuss, but the 
biggest question (IMO) is: what will we get rid of? Another way of looking at 
that is: how will we decide what to get rid of?

This gets even trickier as time goes on and new things are introduced that are 
alternatives to old things. One example is the FTL macro based widget 
renderers... the old ones can go away. Another would by the Query Builder that 
Scott was working on (OFBIZ-4053), and that could result in getting rid of a 
bunch of stuff in the Delegator and GenericDelegator. There are also hundreds 
of methods that simply the same as another method in the same class but with 
fewer arguments and defaults for the missing arguments, and tons of those can 
and should go away (many are there for backward compatibility only).

But is any of this really doable in OFBiz given desires and priorities of the 
community?

Heck, we have complaints about EVERYTHING. Constant complaints about every 
little change. If all of the delegator.find* methods are suddenly gone... just 
imagine the complaints (well, not to mention the refactoring of code in OFBiz 
itself!).

We have complaints about formatting changes in code. We have complaints about 
any and all refactoring changes (moving code, renaming, splitting up or 
combining methods or classes).

What about getting rid of the dozens of totally useless util classes in OFBiz? 
Most of them could (and maybe should) be tossed in favor of other open source 
stuff, or even better in favor of new features in Java or that are handled 
inherently in Groovy or other tools used a lot in OFBiz.

How about making things more consistent in OFBiz by using groovy for all 
expressions and such? We could get rid of the BSH defaults, the UEL stuff, and 
so on. Yeah, I know a lot of work has gone into these things... but consider 
the state of things now and the pain involved in using some of these cumbersome 
tools.

Of course, is this even doable... and worth it? Could we even retest all of the 
code that would be affected by these lower level changes? Could we do this 
without huge efforts in branches? Because the framework and applications are 
tied together we can't easily advance the framework freely and then once we 
like it do a feature freeze and start getting the applications/etc to catch up.

Stepping back I guess the real question is: can we even do these sorts of 
things at this point in the life of the project?

The jQuery branch is an interesting example. I think that worked because it was 
a change with relatively few touch points, and only a couple of people were 
interested in it so everyone else left them alone while they worked on it. But 
what about bigger changes that result in a need for changes in thousands of 
lines of existing code?

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.

Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

-Adrian



  

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

Technology continues to march forward. Some people find it hard to keep up.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> Before saying anything else, let me clarify that I don't
> disagree with this sentiment.
> 
> The big question seems to be what is the "clue" that
> everyone wishes the PMC has?
> 
> Personally, I now disagree with the whole model and doubt
> any redemption for it. Even if there were perfect people on
> the PMC (which is clearly impossible, and the current PMC is
> mostly made up of attempts to do anything to get as many
> people involved as possible): when there is no design to
> implement to and the scope is not very narrowly defined it
> is impossible to keep everyone happy. That's why most ASF
> projects are not like OFBiz with broad scope and business
> focus and a lot of design to be done, they are generally
> implementations of public specifications.
> 
> Is that the clue?
> 
> Maybe a better question is: what is the dream world people
> think they are going to find here?
> 
> Why is anyone surprised?
> 
> Well, for those interested the model I'm going for now is
> quite different, see the "Model: License? Resources?"
> section on the www.moqui.org web site.
> 
> That said, I mentioned above that I don't disagree with the
> sentiment. However, I think it is presented in a piss poor
> way by everyone who is acting like a whining little child
> here. Get a life. If it's a big deal to you then solve the
> problem and stop complaining and whining. Get a grip on
> reality. There are all sorts of things you could do about
> this that don't require trying to push the project. Anyone
> could grab the old theme and post it to any of dozens of
> free hosting places, or just on a wiki page or Jira issue.
> People could even collaborate to reduce the burden on any
> individual. This isn't rocket science.
> 
> This is what is so ridiculous. Almost no one cares about
> handling general needs over specific ones and keeping things
> flexible. Almost no one cares about what anyone else needs.
> And why should it be any different? Those who think things
> should be a certain or another just want a free ride and
> won't lift a finger beyond childish complaints and personal
> attacks to get anything done. This sort of situation is
> EXACTLY what should be expected in this model.
> 
> Still, there are solutions to all of this and rewards for
> those creative and hard-working enough to get them done.
> There is pretty much always a solution once the real problem
> is confessed. There's also a market out there for pretty
> much anything related to this, since currently there aren't
> many people using some sort of violence to stop any of this.
> That's the beauty of the real world.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> 
> > Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience
> the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys
> "don't have a clue".
> > Just my 2 cents.
> > Ruth
> > 
> > On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> That's not true. Every change is discussed and
> debated.
> >> 
> >> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a
> vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is
> silly to think they would not consider those production
> systems when proposing changes.
> >> 
> >> -Adrian
> >> 
> >> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman 
> wrote:
> >>> you will find that the ofbiz
> >>> developer group first priority is to change
> >>> before considering the effect on production
> systemm using
> >>> offbiz.
> >>> something I lobby against, but has little
> effect.
> >>> so I have a system to accomplish this
> regardless of what
> >>> they do.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> =
> >>> BJ Freeman
> >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> Automation
> >>> 
> >>> Specialtymarket.com
> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>> 
> >>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>  But why delete it?  Alot of folks
> learned ofbiz
> >>> on flatgrey, and their
>  employees are used to it.  At least
> keep it
> >>> around as flatgrey_old.
>  On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian
> Crum
> >>> wrote:
> > That theme was starting to look old,
> so the
> >>> developer community decided to
> > update it.
> > 
> > If you prefer the old version of the
> theme, you
> >>> are welcome to replace the
> > new one with it.
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> >> I just loaded trunk and discovered
> that the
> >>> normal flatgrey theme has
> >> been completely redefined. 
> What
> >>> happened?  I thought it was actually
> >> the best theme that was very well
> >>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
> >> back?
> >> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

I couldn't disagree more. The OFBiz code base is a NIGHTMARE because of 
attempts at backward compatibility. This makes it incredibly difficult to 
customize because everything you look at has high levels of redundancy (causing 
all sorts of bugs and inconsistencies), and everything you touch breaks a 
couple of other things.

What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision releases after which 
attempts at backward compatibility are totally abandoned in favor of making 
something better.

However, in a community driven project that just ain't gonna happen, for lots 
of reasons.

So, those of you who like backward compatibility just look around that the 
incredible bulk of the project that has caused. OFBiz could be about 1/4 the 
size it is now with the same, or even more, functionality.

Is that really worth all the backward compatibility?

What if all of that bulk and ugliness and confusion causing stuff kills the 
project as leaner and better alternatives become available?

Is that really worth the backward compatibility?

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Mike wrote:

> Not to completely agree with Ruth and BJ [grin]...
> 
> However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing documentation of
> OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and countless
> other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of documentation shows the
> flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition, there are
> (probably) various other organizational training manuals that exist
> which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click here, etc.).
> What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do we also
> have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about their training
> manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.
> 
> So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one that's the
> issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other themes and I still
> prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought out
> navigation system.   Dave did an excellent job tying all the functions
> together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple tabs really work
> for me.
> 
> It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not break the
> backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting infrastructure.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman  wrote:
>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a
>> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>> Just my 2 cents.
>> Ruth
>> 
>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> 
>>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>> 
>>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have
>>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider
>>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
 
 you will find that the ofbiz
 developer group first priority is to change
 before considering the effect on production systemm using
 offbiz.
 something I lobby against, but has little effect.
 so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
 they do.
 
 
 =
 BJ Freeman
 Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
 
 Specialtymarket.com
 Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
 
 Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
 
 
 Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
> 
> But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
 
 on flatgrey, and their
> 
> employees are used to it.  At least keep it
 
 around as flatgrey_old.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
 
 wrote:
>> 
>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
 
 developer community decided to
>> 
>> update it.
>> 
>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
 
 are welcome to replace the
>> 
>> new one with it.
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
 
 normal flatgrey theme has
>>> 
>>> been completely redefined.  What
 
 happened?  I thought it was actually
>>> 
>>> the best theme that was very well
 
 organized.  Is there a way to get it
>>> 
>>> back?
>>> 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

I don't see where any backward compatibility was broken - unless you are 
referring to the screenshots in Ruth's books. By the way, I believe those books 
are based on release 9.04 - which has the previous version of the Flat Grey 
theme. It's also interesting to note that the release 9.04 Flat Grey theme 
replaced an earlier (uglier IMO) one.

The updated Flat Grey theme has all of the same elements in the same locations 
- with the exception of the user preference settings links. The new theme has 
new colors and background images, otherwise it's the same.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Mike  wrote:
> Not to completely agree with Ruth and
> BJ [grin]...
> 
> However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing
> documentation of
> OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and
> countless
> other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of
> documentation shows the
> flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition,
> there are
> (probably) various other organizational training manuals
> that exist
> which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click
> here, etc.).
> What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do
> we also
> have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about
> their training
> manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.
> 
> So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one
> that's the
> issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other
> themes and I still
> prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought
> out
> navigation system.   Dave did an excellent
> job tying all the functions
> together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple
> tabs really work
> for me.
> 
> It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not
> break the
> backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting
> infrastructure.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman 
> wrote:
> > Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience
> the PMC does live in a
> > vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a
> clue".
> > Just my 2 cents.
> > Ruth
> >
> > On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>
> >> That's not true. Every change is discussed and
> debated.
> >>
> >> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a
> vacuum - they have
> >> production systems to maintain. It is silly to
> think they would not consider
> >> those production systems when proposing changes.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> you will find that the ofbiz
> >>> developer group first priority is to change
> >>> before considering the effect on production
> systemm using
> >>> offbiz.
> >>> something I lobby against, but has little
> effect.
> >>> so I have a system to accomplish this
> regardless of what
> >>> they do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> =
> >>> BJ Freeman
> >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> Automation
> >>> 
> >>> Specialtymarket.com
> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>>
> >>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
> 
>  But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned
> ofbiz
> >>>
> >>> on flatgrey, and their
> 
>  employees are used to it.  At least keep
> it
> >>>
> >>> around as flatgrey_old.
> 
>  On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian
> Crum
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >
> > That theme was starting to look old,
> so the
> >>>
> >>> developer community decided to
> >
> > update it.
> >
> > If you prefer the old version of the
> theme, you
> >>>
> >>> are welcome to replace the
> >
> > new one with it.
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> > On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> >>
> >> I just loaded trunk and discovered
> that the
> >>>
> >>> normal flatgrey theme has
> >>
> >> been completely redefined.  What
> >>>
> >>> happened?  I thought it was actually
> >>
> >> the best theme that was very well
> >>>
> >>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
> >>
> >> back?
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

Before saying anything else, let me clarify that I don't disagree with this 
sentiment.

The big question seems to be what is the "clue" that everyone wishes the PMC 
has?

Personally, I now disagree with the whole model and doubt any redemption for 
it. Even if there were perfect people on the PMC (which is clearly impossible, 
and the current PMC is mostly made up of attempts to do anything to get as many 
people involved as possible): when there is no design to implement to and the 
scope is not very narrowly defined it is impossible to keep everyone happy. 
That's why most ASF projects are not like OFBiz with broad scope and business 
focus and a lot of design to be done, they are generally implementations of 
public specifications.

Is that the clue?

Maybe a better question is: what is the dream world people think they are going 
to find here?

Why is anyone surprised?

Well, for those interested the model I'm going for now is quite different, see 
the "Model: License? Resources?" section on the www.moqui.org web site.

That said, I mentioned above that I don't disagree with the sentiment. However, 
I think it is presented in a piss poor way by everyone who is acting like a 
whining little child here. Get a life. If it's a big deal to you then solve the 
problem and stop complaining and whining. Get a grip on reality. There are all 
sorts of things you could do about this that don't require trying to push the 
project. Anyone could grab the old theme and post it to any of dozens of free 
hosting places, or just on a wiki page or Jira issue. People could even 
collaborate to reduce the burden on any individual. This isn't rocket science.

This is what is so ridiculous. Almost no one cares about handling general needs 
over specific ones and keeping things flexible. Almost no one cares about what 
anyone else needs. And why should it be any different? Those who think things 
should be a certain or another just want a free ride and won't lift a finger 
beyond childish complaints and personal attacks to get anything done. This sort 
of situation is EXACTLY what should be expected in this model.

Still, there are solutions to all of this and rewards for those creative and 
hard-working enough to get them done. There is pretty much always a solution 
once the real problem is confessed. There's also a market out there for pretty 
much anything related to this, since currently there aren't many people using 
some sort of violence to stop any of this. That's the beauty of the real world.

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>> 
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider 
>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>> 
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
 But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>> on flatgrey, and their
 employees are used to it.  At least keep it
>>> around as flatgrey_old.
 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> wrote:
> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>> developer community decided to
> update it.
> 
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>> are welcome to replace the
> new one with it.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>> been completely redefined.  What
>>> happened?  I thought it was actually
>> the best theme that was very well
>>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
>> back?
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Mike]

Not to completely agree with Ruth and BJ [grin]...

However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing documentation of
OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and countless
other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of documentation shows the
flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition, there are
(probably) various other organizational training manuals that exist
which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click here, etc.).
What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do we also
have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about their training
manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.

So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one that's the
issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other themes and I still
prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought out
navigation system.   Dave did an excellent job tying all the functions
together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple tabs really work
for me.

It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not break the
backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting infrastructure.


On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman  wrote:
> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a
> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
>
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have
>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider
>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>>
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>>
>>>
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

 But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>>
>>> on flatgrey, and their

 employees are used to it.  At least keep it
>>>
>>> around as flatgrey_old.

 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
>>>
>>> wrote:
>
> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>>
>>> developer community decided to
>
> update it.
>
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>>
>>> are welcome to replace the
>
> new one with it.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>>
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>
>> been completely redefined.  What
>>>
>>> happened?  I thought it was actually
>>
>> the best theme that was very well
>>>
>>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
>>
>> back?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Ruth Hoffman]

Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in 
a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".

Just my 2 cents.
Ruth

On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.

The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production 
systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those 
production systems when proposing changes.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:

you will find that the ofbiz
developer group first priority is to change
before considering the effect on production systemm using
offbiz.
something I lobby against, but has little effect.
so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
they do.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz

on flatgrey, and their

employees are used to it.  At least keep it

around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum

wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the

developer community decided to

update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you

are welcome to replace the

new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the

normal flatgrey theme has

been completely redefined.  What

happened?  I thought it was actually

the best theme that was very well

organized.  Is there a way to get it

back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.

The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production 
systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those 
production systems when proposing changes.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
> you will find that the ofbiz
> developer group first priority is to change 
> before considering the effect on production systemm using
> offbiz.
> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
> they do.
> 
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation 
> 
> Specialtymarket.com  
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> 
> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
> > But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
> on flatgrey, and their
> > employees are used to it.  At least keep it
> around as flatgrey_old.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum 
> wrote:
> >> That theme was starting to look old, so the
> developer community decided to
> >> update it.
> >>
> >> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
> are welcome to replace the
> >> new one with it.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
> normal flatgrey theme has
> >>> been completely redefined.  What
> happened?  I thought it was actually
> >>> the best theme that was very well
> organized.  Is there a way to get it
> >>> back?
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[BJ Freeman]

you will find that the ofbiz developer group first priority is to change 
before considering the effect on production systemm using offbiz.

something I lobby against, but has little effect.
so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what they do.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz on flatgrey, and their
employees are used to it.  At least keep it around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum  wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace the
new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:


I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[BJ Freeman]

see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092
look in eclipse for history of the flatgrey folder
you can revert to 1044065 which is just before the Jquery merge
or you can download a zip file before 1044065 then copy the flat grey to 
your copy.



=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:21 PM:


I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

The updated theme moved the user preferences to the footer and changed 
the look. Other than that, the functionality is still the same - all 
menus and buttons are still in the same location.


-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:38 PM, Mike wrote:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz on flatgrey, and their
employees are used to it.  At least keep it around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum  wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace the
new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:


I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Mike]

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz on flatgrey, and their
employees are used to it.  At least keep it around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum  wrote:
> That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
> update it.
>
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace the
> new one with it.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
>> been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
>> the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
>> back?
>>
>

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided 
to update it.


If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace 
the new one with it.


-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?