Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Hi Bruno, I think your plan makes a lot of sense and I also agree with your spreadsheet. We should work on the buildbot to report and enforce correct dependencies. Cheers, Chris Bruno Busco wrote: Chris, I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components dependency hierarchy. This is my plan: We should select "core" or "framework" components that are the minimum must be installed in order to have a running OFBiz. Then we should say: "additional component A can be installed if componentd B is installed also", "component C can be installed if A and B are installed" Having this in place will let us define some "OFBiz configurations" that should run properly according to the design. For instance: Configuration 1 -> Only the "core" components Configuration 2 -> Core components + component A and B Configuration 3 -> Core components + components A, B and C Every configuration should be automatically built by BuildBot so that we continuously check if unwanted dependencies are added in the codebase. When all this will be in place we can further work to a greater components separation. If we agree with this could we work toghether identifying the configurations? The excel sheet I have uploaded here http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution can be used as a tool for this. What do you think about? -Bruno 2010/2/7 Christopher Snow : Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have the benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you wouldn't get the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. Development would be more difficult as you would be working across multiple files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a consolidated view? Cheers, Chris Christopher Snow wrote: Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my current view is this: 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain functional areas without having to install most of the other components. E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to install Accounting, Party management, etc. The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the business processes within those modules. Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have time... Bruno Busco wrote: The complete url for the confluence page is: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. Please fille free to contribute to update it. The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: Chris, Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the components in the framework folder independently from anything else in OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the applications folder. I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed to failure. TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP doesn't care. From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on outside c
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
for that use the datamodel books and look at the data in each application and see if it uses data from other applications. if it does there is a dependency. Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/7/2010 1:57 AM: > Hi BJ, > sorry but what I meant for "configfoation" is different from what I > see you addressed in these jiras. > For configuration I mean a defined set of components that are supposed > to work without any other component in the installation. > > -Bruno > > > 2010/2/7 BJ Freeman : >> both Hans and I have been working on configuration >> Hans is in the trunk. I have yet to get mine put in the Jira. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-636 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-635 >> >> Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/7/2010 12:38 AM: >>> Chris, >>> I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components >>> dependency hierarchy. >>> >>> This is my plan: >>> >>> We should select "core" or "framework" components that are the >>> minimum must be installed in order to have a running OFBiz. >>> >>> Then we should say: "additional component A can be installed if >>> componentd B is installed also", "component C can be installed if A >>> and B are installed" >>> >>> Having this in place will let us define some "OFBiz configurations" >>> that should run properly according to the design. >>> >>> For instance: >>> Configuration 1 -> Only the "core" components >>> Configuration 2 -> Core components + component A and B >>> Configuration 3 -> Core components + components A, B and C >>> >>> Every configuration should be automatically built by BuildBot so that >>> we continuously check if unwanted dependencies are added in the >>> codebase. >>> >>> When all this will be in place we can further work to a greater >>> components separation. >>> If we agree with this could we work toghether identifying the >>> configurations? >>> >>> The excel sheet I have uploaded here >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution >>> can be used as a tool for this. >>> >>> What do you think about? >>> >>> >>> -Bruno >>> >>> 2010/2/7 Christopher Snow : Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have the benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you wouldn't get the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. Development would be more difficult as you would be working across multiple files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a consolidated view? Cheers, Chris Christopher Snow wrote: > Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I > will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my > current view is this: > 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework > 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain > functional areas without having to install most of the other components. > E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to > install > Accounting, Party management, etc. > > The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking > each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: > > WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) > WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) > WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) > > Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate > developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the > business processes within those modules. > > Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have > time... > > > Bruno Busco wrote: >> The complete url for the confluence page is: >> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution >> >> >> 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : >> >>> I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet >>> that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. >>> >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 >>> >>> Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. >>> Please fille free to contribute to update it. >>> The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. >>> The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. >>> >>> -Bruno >>> >>> 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : >>> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: > Chris, > > Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no > disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The > disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. > > Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running > the >>>
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Hi BJ, sorry but what I meant for "configuration" is different from what I see you addressed in these jiras. For configuration I mean a defined set of components that are supposed to work without any other component in the installation. -Bruno 2010/2/7 BJ Freeman : > both Hans and I have been working on configuration > Hans is in the trunk. I have yet to get mine put in the Jira. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-636 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-635 > > Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/7/2010 12:38 AM: >> Chris, >> I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components >> dependency hierarchy. >> >> This is my plan: >> >> We should select "core" or "framework" components that are the >> minimum must be installed in order to have a running OFBiz. >> >> Then we should say: "additional component A can be installed if >> componentd B is installed also", "component C can be installed if A >> and B are installed" >> >> Having this in place will let us define some "OFBiz configurations" >> that should run properly according to the design. >> >> For instance: >> Configuration 1 -> Only the "core" components >> Configuration 2 -> Core components + component A and B >> Configuration 3 -> Core components + components A, B and C >> >> Every configuration should be automatically built by BuildBot so that >> we continuously check if unwanted dependencies are added in the >> codebase. >> >> When all this will be in place we can further work to a greater >> components separation. >> If we agree with this could we work toghether identifying the configurations? >> >> The excel sheet I have uploaded here >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution >> can be used as a tool for this. >> >> What do you think about? >> >> >> -Bruno >> >> 2010/2/7 Christopher Snow : >>> Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have the >>> benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you wouldn't get >>> the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. >>> >>> Development would be more difficult as you would be working across multiple >>> files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a consolidated >>> view? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my current view is this: 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain functional areas without having to install most of the other components. E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to install Accounting, Party management, etc. The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the business processes within those modules. Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have time... Bruno Busco wrote: > The complete url for the confluence page is: > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution > > > 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : > >> I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet >> that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. >> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 >> >> Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. >> Please fille free to contribute to update it. >> The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. >> The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. >> >> -Bruno >> >> 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : >> >>> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> Chris, Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the components in the framework folder independently from anything else in OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been discussed. Then
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
both Hans and I have been working on configuration Hans is in the trunk. I have yet to get mine put in the Jira. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-636 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-635 Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/7/2010 12:38 AM: > Chris, > I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components > dependency hierarchy. > > This is my plan: > > We should select "core" or "framework" components that are the > minimum must be installed in order to have a running OFBiz. > > Then we should say: "additional component A can be installed if > componentd B is installed also", "component C can be installed if A > and B are installed" > > Having this in place will let us define some "OFBiz configurations" > that should run properly according to the design. > > For instance: > Configuration 1 -> Only the "core" components > Configuration 2 -> Core components + component A and B > Configuration 3 -> Core components + components A, B and C > > Every configuration should be automatically built by BuildBot so that > we continuously check if unwanted dependencies are added in the > codebase. > > When all this will be in place we can further work to a greater > components separation. > If we agree with this could we work toghether identifying the configurations? > > The excel sheet I have uploaded here > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution > can be used as a tool for this. > > What do you think about? > > > -Bruno > > 2010/2/7 Christopher Snow : >> Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have the >> benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you wouldn't get >> the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. >> >> Development would be more difficult as you would be working across multiple >> files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a consolidated >> view? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I >>> will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my >>> current view is this: >>> 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework >>> 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain >>> functional areas without having to install most of the other components. >>> E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to install >>> Accounting, Party management, etc. >>> >>> The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking >>> each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: >>> >>> WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) >>> WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) >>> WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) >>> >>> Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate >>> developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the >>> business processes within those modules. >>> >>> Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have >>> time... >>> >>> >>> Bruno Busco wrote: The complete url for the confluence page is: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : > I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet > that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 > > Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. > Please fille free to contribute to update it. > The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. > The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. > > -Bruno > > 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : > >> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Chris, >>> >>> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no >>> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The >>> disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. >>> >>> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running >>> the >>> components in the framework folder independently from anything else >>> in >>> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes >>> are >>> in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework >>> independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been >>> discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the >>> applications folder. >>> >> I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to >> separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed >> to failure. >> >> TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on >> separate layers (the 7-layer OSI m
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
not sure if you look at the UI but there are permission you can use for which UI are available to which login via permissions and roles. as far as components you can hide a whole component in the web.xml and still have access to it. The artifact in webtools lets you see association with services, eca, controller, UI the basic design is the entity controls the database and UI data. Christopher Snow sent the following on 2/7/2010 12:17 AM: > Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have > the benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you > wouldn't get the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. > > Development would be more difficult as you would be working across > multiple files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a > consolidated view? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues >> - I will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. >> However, my current view is this: >> 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework >> 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain >> functional areas without having to install most of the other >> components. E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without >> having to install Accounting, Party management, etc. >> >> The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without >> breaking each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: >> >> WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) >> WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) >> WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) >> >> Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate >> developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the >> business processes within those modules. >> >> Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have >> time... >> >> >> Bruno Busco wrote: >>> The complete url for the confluence page is: >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : >>> I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. Please fille free to contribute to update it. The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : > On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> Chris, >> >> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no >> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The >> disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. >> >> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means >> running the >> components in the framework folder independently from anything >> else in >> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual >> themes are >> in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework >> independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been >> discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the >> applications folder. >> > I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like > trying to > separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise > doomed > to failure. > > TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on > separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like > 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the > rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other > means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- > TCP/IP > doesn't care. > > >> From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two >> pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside >> components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on >> outside components. >> > This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework > depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and > spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies > HAVE to > be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the > biggest > problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are > very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you > quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you > describe. > > Is there a
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Chris, I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components dependency hierarchy. This is my plan: We should select "core" or "framework" components that are the minimum must be installed in order to have a running OFBiz. Then we should say: "additional component A can be installed if componentd B is installed also", "component C can be installed if A and B are installed" Having this in place will let us define some "OFBiz configurations" that should run properly according to the design. For instance: Configuration 1 -> Only the "core" components Configuration 2 -> Core components + component A and B Configuration 3 -> Core components + components A, B and C Every configuration should be automatically built by BuildBot so that we continuously check if unwanted dependencies are added in the codebase. When all this will be in place we can further work to a greater components separation. If we agree with this could we work toghether identifying the configurations? The excel sheet I have uploaded here http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution can be used as a tool for this. What do you think about? -Bruno 2010/2/7 Christopher Snow : > Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have the > benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you wouldn't get > the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. > > Development would be more difficult as you would be working across multiple > files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a consolidated > view? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I >> will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my >> current view is this: >> 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework >> 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain >> functional areas without having to install most of the other components. >> E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to install >> Accounting, Party management, etc. >> >> The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking >> each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: >> >> WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) >> WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) >> WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) >> >> Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate >> developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the >> business processes within those modules. >> >> Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have >> time... >> >> >> Bruno Busco wrote: >>> >>> The complete url for the confluence page is: >>> >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution >>> >>> >>> 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : >>> I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. Please fille free to contribute to update it. The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : > > On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> >> Chris, >> >> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no >> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The >> disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. >> >> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running >> the >> components in the framework folder independently from anything else >> in >> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes >> are >> in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework >> independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been >> discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the >> applications folder. >> > > I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to > separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed > to failure. > > TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on > separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like > 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the > rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other > means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- > TCP/IP > doesn't care. > > >> >> From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two >> pro
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have the benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you wouldn't get the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets. Development would be more difficult as you would be working across multiple files. However, maybe the eclipse ofbiz IDE could provide a consolidated view? Cheers, Chris Christopher Snow wrote: Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my current view is this: 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain functional areas without having to install most of the other components. E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to install Accounting, Party management, etc. The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the business processes within those modules. Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have time... Bruno Busco wrote: The complete url for the confluence page is: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. Please fille free to contribute to update it. The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: Chris, Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the components in the framework folder independently from anything else in OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the applications folder. I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed to failure. TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP doesn't care. From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on outside components. This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies HAVE to be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the biggest problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you describe. Is there a comprehensible map of the layers in OFBiz? All I have seen is very detailed charts that seem to obfuscate, rather than clarify, the relationships of the various modules. But I'm sure I have not seen everything. Is there a 30,000-foot overview of the software levels? The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. Which requires a clear model of what layer the code under consideration belongs to, and what are the well-defined layers below it that can be dependencies. Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the effort, and getting committers to avoid
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues - I will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However, my current view is this: 1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework 2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain functional areas without having to install most of the other components. E.g. install WorkEffort as a standalone component without having to install Accounting, Party management, etc. The current implementation of ofbiz does not support (2) without breaking each component up into a number of smaller modules such as: WorkEffortCore module (has no external dependency) WorkEffortFixedAsset module (requires FixedAsset core module) WorkEffortParties module (requires Party core module) Option (2) would give maximum reuse of code and would facilitate developers in learning ofbiz as they would only need to focus on the business processes within those modules. Anyway, I'm going to play around with the above concept when I have time... Bruno Busco wrote: The complete url for the confluence page is: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. Please fille free to contribute to update it. The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: Chris, Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the components in the framework folder independently from anything else in OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the applications folder. I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed to failure. TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP doesn't care. From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on outside components. This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies HAVE to be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the biggest problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you describe. Is there a comprehensible map of the layers in OFBiz? All I have seen is very detailed charts that seem to obfuscate, rather than clarify, the relationships of the various modules. But I'm sure I have not seen everything. Is there a 30,000-foot overview of the software levels? The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. Which requires a clear model of what layer the code under consideration belongs to, and what are the well-defined layers below it that can be dependencies. Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the effort, and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. Again, I think we need to reduce the learning curve by providing clear maps. You shouldn't need to know everything to be able to contribute meaningful and error-free code. -Adrian --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow wrote: From: Christopher Snow Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible? To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Fr
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
The complete url for the confluence page is: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution 2010/2/6 Bruno Busco : > I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet > that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 > > Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. > Please fille free to contribute to update it. > The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. > The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. > > -Bruno > > 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : >> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> Chris, >>> >>> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no >>> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The >>> disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. >>> >>> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the >>> components in the framework folder independently from anything else in >>> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are >>> in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework >>> independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been >>> discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the >>> applications folder. >> >> I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to >> separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed >> to failure. >> >> TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on >> separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like >> 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the >> rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other >> means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP >> doesn't care. >> >>> From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two >>> pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside >>> components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on >>> outside components. >> >> This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework >> depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and >> spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies HAVE to >> be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the biggest >> problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are >> very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you >> quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you >> describe. >> >> Is there a comprehensible map of the layers in OFBiz? All I have seen >> is very detailed charts that seem to obfuscate, rather than clarify, the >> relationships of the various modules. But I'm sure I have not seen >> everything. Is there a 30,000-foot overview of the software levels? >> >>> The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people >>> like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. >>> >>> The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need >>> to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. >> >> Which requires a clear model of what layer the code under consideration >> belongs to, and what are the well-defined layers below it that can be >> dependencies. >>> >>> Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The >>> obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the >>> effort, and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. >> >> Again, I think we need to reduce the learning curve by providing clear >> maps. You shouldn't need to know everything to be able to contribute >> meaningful and error-free code. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>> > From: Christopher Snow >>> > Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible? >>> > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >>> > Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM >>> > I'm back to the process of working >>> > out how to get a standalone framework running based on >>> > trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have got out >>> > of hand (if I've understood the code right): >>> > >>> > Framework depends on Themes >>> > Themes depends on Content >>> > Content depends on Party >>> > >>> > The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: >>> > >>> > "Is is ever going to be possible to have framework >>> > independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is >>> > relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) perhaps the >>> > most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 and then >>> > back port all framework related commits from trunk? " >>> > >>> > Any ideas anyone? >>> > >>> > Many thanks, >>> > >>> > Chris >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Warnock >> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc. >> >> >
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet that we could use to track the dependecies issue down. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1 Hope this helps. It is not yet completed. Please fille free to contribute to update it. The black "X" are dependecies that we want in the code base. The red "X" are dependencies that are there but should not. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Matt Warnock : > On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: >> Chris, >> >> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no >> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The >> disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. >> >> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the >> components in the framework folder independently from anything else in >> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are >> in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework >> independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been >> discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the >> applications folder. > > I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to > separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed > to failure. > > TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on > separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like > 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the > rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other > means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP > doesn't care. > >> From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two >> pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside >> components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on >> outside components. > > This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework > depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and > spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies HAVE to > be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the biggest > problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are > very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you > quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you > describe. > > Is there a comprehensible map of the layers in OFBiz? All I have seen > is very detailed charts that seem to obfuscate, rather than clarify, the > relationships of the various modules. But I'm sure I have not seen > everything. Is there a 30,000-foot overview of the software levels? > >> The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people >> like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. >> >> The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need >> to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. > > Which requires a clear model of what layer the code under consideration > belongs to, and what are the well-defined layers below it that can be > dependencies. >> >> Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The >> obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the >> effort, and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. > > Again, I think we need to reduce the learning curve by providing clear > maps. You shouldn't need to know everything to be able to contribute > meaningful and error-free code. >> >> -Adrian >> >> >> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> > From: Christopher Snow >> > Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible? >> > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >> > Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM >> > I'm back to the process of working >> > out how to get a standalone framework running based on >> > trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have got out >> > of hand (if I've understood the code right): >> > >> > Framework depends on Themes >> > Themes depends on Content >> > Content depends on Party >> > >> > The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: >> > >> > "Is is ever going to be possible to have framework >> > independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is >> > relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) perhaps the >> > most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 and then >> > back port all framework related commits from trunk? " >> > >> > Any ideas anyone? >> > >> > Many thanks, >> > >> > Chris >> > >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Warnock > RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc. > >
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: > Chris, > > Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no > disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The > disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. > > Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the > components in the framework folder independently from anything else in > OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are > in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework > independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been > discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the > applications folder. I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed to failure. TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP doesn't care. > From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two > pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside > components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on > outside components. This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies HAVE to be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the biggest problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you describe. Is there a comprehensible map of the layers in OFBiz? All I have seen is very detailed charts that seem to obfuscate, rather than clarify, the relationships of the various modules. But I'm sure I have not seen everything. Is there a 30,000-foot overview of the software levels? > The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people > like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. > > The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need > to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. Which requires a clear model of what layer the code under consideration belongs to, and what are the well-defined layers below it that can be dependencies. > > Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The > obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the > effort, and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. Again, I think we need to reduce the learning curve by providing clear maps. You shouldn't need to know everything to be able to contribute meaningful and error-free code. > > -Adrian > > > --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow wrote: > > > From: Christopher Snow > > Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible? > > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > > Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM > > I'm back to the process of working > > out how to get a standalone framework running based on > > trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have got out > > of hand (if I've understood the code right): > > > > Framework depends on Themes > > Themes depends on Content > > Content depends on Party > > > > The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: > > > > "Is is ever going to be possible to have framework > > independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is > > relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) perhaps the > > most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 and then > > back port all framework related commits from trunk? " > > > > Any ideas anyone? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Chris > > > > > -- Matt Warnock RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Chris, I think we have not moved very forward. We still have at least this page: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution and the page you have written: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Ofbiz+as+a+development+framework some comments in the DEV ML and not much more. I am ready to restart! I suggest to collect here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution all the points we are able to agree and then start with the implementation. -Bruno 2010/2/6 Christopher Snow : > Hi Bruno, > > What are the current points of view on what should be included in the > framework? > > Many thanks, > > Chris > > Bruno Busco wrote: >> >> This is something we discussed in the DEV ML: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@ofbiz.apache.org/msg36156.html >> >> -Bruno >> >> 2010/2/6 Adrian Crum : >> >>> >>> Yes, follow Jacopo's suggestion: create an ant task to build framework >>> only, then "run the framework only" >>> >>> *shrug* I don't know what that means. >>> >>> Maybe have a Selenium task that checks to see if it actually runs on its >>> own. >>> >>> I'm not real clear on how that would work, but it would definitely be >>> worth a try! >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> > >
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Hi Bruno, What are the current points of view on what should be included in the framework? Many thanks, Chris Bruno Busco wrote: This is something we discussed in the DEV ML: http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@ofbiz.apache.org/msg36156.html -Bruno 2010/2/6 Adrian Crum : Yes, follow Jacopo's suggestion: create an ant task to build framework only, then "run the framework only" *shrug* I don't know what that means. Maybe have a Selenium task that checks to see if it actually runs on its own. I'm not real clear on how that would work, but it would definitely be worth a try! -Adrian
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
This is something we discussed in the DEV ML: http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@ofbiz.apache.org/msg36156.html -Bruno 2010/2/6 Adrian Crum : > Yes, follow Jacopo's suggestion: create an ant task to build framework only, > then "run the framework only" > > *shrug* I don't know what that means. > > Maybe have a Selenium task that checks to see if it actually runs on its own. > > I'm not real clear on how that would work, but it would definitely be worth a > try! > > -Adrian > > --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow wrote: > >> From: Chris Snow >> Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be >> possible? >> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:49 AM >> Shall I raise a jira for this? Is >> there any documentation on the build and >> test process for ofbiz? e.g. does buildbot run ofbiz and >> run any tests? >> >> > We can probably start with something simple: add an >> ant task that simply >> > builds the framework (applications and specialpurpose >> will be ignored) and >> > then an ant task to run the framework only. >> > This will require some minor tweaks to the base >> component loading >> > mechanism, but it should be trivial. Right now the >> only way (I am aware >> > of) of building a framework only distro is to remove >> (or similar) the >> > application and specialpurpose folders. >> > >> > Jacopo >> > >> > >> > On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> > >> >> A tool would certainly help. If such a tool was >> included in OFBiz, then >> >> it would have to be compatible with the Apache >> license. >> >> >> >> -Adrian >> >> >> >> --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: Chris Snow >> >>> Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework >> independence ever going to be >> >>> possible? >> >>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >> >>> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:02 AM >> >>> Thanks for the feedback Adrian. >> >>> Would it be worth me writing a tool that >> >>> runs as part of the build process that reports >> on the >> >>> dependencies? It >> >>> could throw a warning/error when a new invalid >> dependency >> >>> is checked in? >> >>> >> >>>> Chris, >> >>>> >> >>>> Framework independence has been a goal for >> quite a >> >>> while. There is no >> >>>> disagreement that the framework should run >> on its own. >> >>> The disagreements >> >>>> arise in what constitutes the framework. >> >>>> >> >>>> Let's assume for a moment that framework >> independence >> >>> means running the >> >>>> components in the framework folder >> independently from >> >>> anything else in >> >>>> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that >> idea is that >> >>> visual themes are in >> >>>> a separate folder outside the framework >> folder. Does >> >>> framework >> >>>> independence include the visual themes >> folder? That >> >>> has not been >> >>>> discussed. Then there are the multitude >> of >> >>> dependencies upon the >> >>>> applications folder. >> >>>> >> >>>> From my perspective, achieving this >> objective will >> >>> require a two pronged >> >>>> approach: 1) Identify the framework >> dependencies on >> >>> outside components, >> >>>> and 2) avoid introducing new framework >> dependencies on >> >>> outside components. >> >>>> >> >>>> The first prong can be accomplished >> through >> >>> contributions from people like >> >>>> you - find the dependencies and create >> patches to fix >> >>> them. >> >>>> >> >>>> The responsibility of the second prong is >> up to the >> >>> committers. We need to >> >>>> be more vigilant to guard against >> introducing new >> >>> dependencies. >> >>>> >> >>>> Personally I believe it wi
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Yes, follow Jacopo's suggestion: create an ant task to build framework only, then "run the framework only" *shrug* I don't know what that means. Maybe have a Selenium task that checks to see if it actually runs on its own. I'm not real clear on how that would work, but it would definitely be worth a try! -Adrian --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow wrote: > From: Chris Snow > Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be > possible? > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:49 AM > Shall I raise a jira for this? Is > there any documentation on the build and > test process for ofbiz? e.g. does buildbot run ofbiz and > run any tests? > > > We can probably start with something simple: add an > ant task that simply > > builds the framework (applications and specialpurpose > will be ignored) and > > then an ant task to run the framework only. > > This will require some minor tweaks to the base > component loading > > mechanism, but it should be trivial. Right now the > only way (I am aware > > of) of building a framework only distro is to remove > (or similar) the > > application and specialpurpose folders. > > > > Jacopo > > > > > > On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > >> A tool would certainly help. If such a tool was > included in OFBiz, then > >> it would have to be compatible with the Apache > license. > >> > >> -Adrian > >> > >> --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow > wrote: > >> > >>> From: Chris Snow > >>> Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework > independence ever going to be > >>> possible? > >>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > >>> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:02 AM > >>> Thanks for the feedback Adrian. > >>> Would it be worth me writing a tool that > >>> runs as part of the build process that reports > on the > >>> dependencies? It > >>> could throw a warning/error when a new invalid > dependency > >>> is checked in? > >>> > >>>> Chris, > >>>> > >>>> Framework independence has been a goal for > quite a > >>> while. There is no > >>>> disagreement that the framework should run > on its own. > >>> The disagreements > >>>> arise in what constitutes the framework. > >>>> > >>>> Let's assume for a moment that framework > independence > >>> means running the > >>>> components in the framework folder > independently from > >>> anything else in > >>>> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that > idea is that > >>> visual themes are in > >>>> a separate folder outside the framework > folder. Does > >>> framework > >>>> independence include the visual themes > folder? That > >>> has not been > >>>> discussed. Then there are the multitude > of > >>> dependencies upon the > >>>> applications folder. > >>>> > >>>> From my perspective, achieving this > objective will > >>> require a two pronged > >>>> approach: 1) Identify the framework > dependencies on > >>> outside components, > >>>> and 2) avoid introducing new framework > dependencies on > >>> outside components. > >>>> > >>>> The first prong can be accomplished > through > >>> contributions from people like > >>>> you - find the dependencies and create > patches to fix > >>> them. > >>>> > >>>> The responsibility of the second prong is > up to the > >>> committers. We need to > >>>> be more vigilant to guard against > introducing new > >>> dependencies. > >>>> > >>>> Personally I believe it will be possible, > BUT it won't > >>> be easy. The > >>>> obstacles to overcome will be getting > people to > >>> contribute to the effort, > >>>> and getting committers to avoid > introducing new > >>> dependencies. > >>>> > >>>> -Adrian > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> From: Christopher Snow > >>>>> Subject: what a mess! is framework > indep
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Shall I raise a jira for this? Is there any documentation on the build and test process for ofbiz? e.g. does buildbot run ofbiz and run any tests? > We can probably start with something simple: add an ant task that simply > builds the framework (applications and specialpurpose will be ignored) and > then an ant task to run the framework only. > This will require some minor tweaks to the base component loading > mechanism, but it should be trivial. Right now the only way (I am aware > of) of building a framework only distro is to remove (or similar) the > application and specialpurpose folders. > > Jacopo > > > On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> A tool would certainly help. If such a tool was included in OFBiz, then >> it would have to be compatible with the Apache license. >> >> -Adrian >> >> --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow wrote: >> >>> From: Chris Snow >>> Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be >>> possible? >>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >>> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:02 AM >>> Thanks for the feedback Adrian. >>> Would it be worth me writing a tool that >>> runs as part of the build process that reports on the >>> dependencies? It >>> could throw a warning/error when a new invalid dependency >>> is checked in? >>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a >>> while. There is no >>>> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. >>> The disagreements >>>> arise in what constitutes the framework. >>>> >>>> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence >>> means running the >>>> components in the framework folder independently from >>> anything else in >>>> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that >>> visual themes are in >>>> a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does >>> framework >>>> independence include the visual themes folder? That >>> has not been >>>> discussed. Then there are the multitude of >>> dependencies upon the >>>> applications folder. >>>> >>>> From my perspective, achieving this objective will >>> require a two pronged >>>> approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on >>> outside components, >>>> and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on >>> outside components. >>>> >>>> The first prong can be accomplished through >>> contributions from people like >>>> you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix >>> them. >>>> >>>> The responsibility of the second prong is up to the >>> committers. We need to >>>> be more vigilant to guard against introducing new >>> dependencies. >>>> >>>> Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't >>> be easy. The >>>> obstacles to overcome will be getting people to >>> contribute to the effort, >>>> and getting committers to avoid introducing new >>> dependencies. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Christopher Snow >>>>> Subject: what a mess! is framework independence >>> ever going to be >>>>> possible? >>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >>>>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM >>>>> I'm back to the process of working >>>>> out how to get a standalone framework running >>> based on >>>>> trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have >>> got out >>>>> of hand (if I've understood the code right): >>>>> >>>>> Framework depends on Themes >>>>> Themes depends on Content >>>>> Content depends on Party >>>>> >>>>> The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: >>>>> >>>>> "Is is ever going to be possible to have >>> framework >>>>> independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is >>>>> relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) >>> perhaps the >>>>> most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 >>> and then >>>>> back port all framework related commits from >>> trunk? " >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas anyone? >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >>> >>> Tel: 01453 890660 >>> Mob: 07944 880950 >>> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP Tel: 01453 890660 Mob: 07944 880950 Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
We can probably start with something simple: add an ant task that simply builds the framework (applications and specialpurpose will be ignored) and then an ant task to run the framework only. This will require some minor tweaks to the base component loading mechanism, but it should be trivial. Right now the only way (I am aware of) of building a framework only distro is to remove (or similar) the application and specialpurpose folders. Jacopo On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > A tool would certainly help. If such a tool was included in OFBiz, then it > would have to be compatible with the Apache license. > > -Adrian > > --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow wrote: > >> From: Chris Snow >> Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be >> possible? >> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:02 AM >> Thanks for the feedback Adrian. >> Would it be worth me writing a tool that >> runs as part of the build process that reports on the >> dependencies? It >> could throw a warning/error when a new invalid dependency >> is checked in? >> >>> Chris, >>> >>> Framework independence has been a goal for quite a >> while. There is no >>> disagreement that the framework should run on its own. >> The disagreements >>> arise in what constitutes the framework. >>> >>> Let's assume for a moment that framework independence >> means running the >>> components in the framework folder independently from >> anything else in >>> OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that >> visual themes are in >>> a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does >> framework >>> independence include the visual themes folder? That >> has not been >>> discussed. Then there are the multitude of >> dependencies upon the >>> applications folder. >>> >>> From my perspective, achieving this objective will >> require a two pronged >>> approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on >> outside components, >>> and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on >> outside components. >>> >>> The first prong can be accomplished through >> contributions from people like >>> you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix >> them. >>> >>> The responsibility of the second prong is up to the >> committers. We need to >>> be more vigilant to guard against introducing new >> dependencies. >>> >>> Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't >> be easy. The >>> obstacles to overcome will be getting people to >> contribute to the effort, >>> and getting committers to avoid introducing new >> dependencies. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow >> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Christopher Snow >>>> Subject: what a mess! is framework independence >> ever going to be >>>> possible? >>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >>>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM >>>> I'm back to the process of working >>>> out how to get a standalone framework running >> based on >>>> trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have >> got out >>>> of hand (if I've understood the code right): >>>> >>>> Framework depends on Themes >>>> Themes depends on Content >>>> Content depends on Party >>>> >>>> The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: >>>> >>>> "Is is ever going to be possible to have >> framework >>>> independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is >>>> relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) >> perhaps the >>>> most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 >> and then >>>> back port all framework related commits from >> trunk? " >>>> >>>> Any ideas anyone? >>>> >>>> Many thanks, >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >> >> Tel: 01453 890660 >> Mob: 07944 880950 >> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >> >> > > >
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
A tool would certainly help. If such a tool was included in OFBiz, then it would have to be compatible with the Apache license. -Adrian --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow wrote: > From: Chris Snow > Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be > possible? > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:02 AM > Thanks for the feedback Adrian. > Would it be worth me writing a tool that > runs as part of the build process that reports on the > dependencies? It > could throw a warning/error when a new invalid dependency > is checked in? > > > Chris, > > > > Framework independence has been a goal for quite a > while. There is no > > disagreement that the framework should run on its own. > The disagreements > > arise in what constitutes the framework. > > > > Let's assume for a moment that framework independence > means running the > > components in the framework folder independently from > anything else in > > OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that > visual themes are in > > a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does > framework > > independence include the visual themes folder? That > has not been > > discussed. Then there are the multitude of > dependencies upon the > > applications folder. > > > > From my perspective, achieving this objective will > require a two pronged > > approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on > outside components, > > and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on > outside components. > > > > The first prong can be accomplished through > contributions from people like > > you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix > them. > > > > The responsibility of the second prong is up to the > committers. We need to > > be more vigilant to guard against introducing new > dependencies. > > > > Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't > be easy. The > > obstacles to overcome will be getting people to > contribute to the effort, > > and getting committers to avoid introducing new > dependencies. > > > > -Adrian > > > > > > --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow > wrote: > > > >> From: Christopher Snow > >> Subject: what a mess! is framework independence > ever going to be > >> possible? > >> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > >> Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM > >> I'm back to the process of working > >> out how to get a standalone framework running > based on > >> trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have > got out > >> of hand (if I've understood the code right): > >> > >> Framework depends on Themes > >> Themes depends on Content > >> Content depends on Party > >> > >> The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: > >> > >> "Is is ever going to be possible to have > framework > >> independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is > >> relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) > perhaps the > >> most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 > and then > >> back port all framework related commits from > trunk? " > >> > >> Any ideas anyone? > >> > >> Many thanks, > >> > >> Chris > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP > > Tel: 01453 890660 > Mob: 07944 880950 > Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk > >
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Thanks for the feedback Adrian. Would it be worth me writing a tool that runs as part of the build process that reports on the dependencies? It could throw a warning/error when a new invalid dependency is checked in? > Chris, > > Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no > disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The disagreements > arise in what constitutes the framework. > > Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the > components in the framework folder independently from anything else in > OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are in > a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework > independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been > discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the > applications folder. > > From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two pronged > approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside components, > and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on outside components. > > The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people like > you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. > > The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need to > be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. > > Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The > obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the effort, > and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. > > -Adrian > > > --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow wrote: > >> From: Christopher Snow >> Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be >> possible? >> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org >> Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM >> I'm back to the process of working >> out how to get a standalone framework running based on >> trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have got out >> of hand (if I've understood the code right): >> >> Framework depends on Themes >> Themes depends on Content >> Content depends on Party >> >> The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: >> >> "Is is ever going to be possible to have framework >> independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is >> relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) perhaps the >> most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 and then >> back port all framework related commits from trunk? " >> >> Any ideas anyone? >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Chris >> > > > > -- Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP Tel: 01453 890660 Mob: 07944 880950 Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk
Re: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible?
Chris, Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the components in the framework folder independently from anything else in OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the applications folder. From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on outside components. The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the effort, and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. -Adrian --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow wrote: > From: Christopher Snow > Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible? > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM > I'm back to the process of working > out how to get a standalone framework running based on > trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have got out > of hand (if I've understood the code right): > > Framework depends on Themes > Themes depends on Content > Content depends on Party > > The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: > > "Is is ever going to be possible to have framework > independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is > relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) perhaps the > most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 and then > back port all framework related commits from trunk? " > > Any ideas anyone? > > Many thanks, > > Chris >
