There was a lot of discussion a few months ago about replacing the
framework.
That seems to have died down.
At the same time, we are talking about the documentation and in the
documentation plan, the framework is mentioned as a separately
marketable product.
To me, it is clear that one should not be promoting a framework that
will be replaced.
If the framework is a separate product that can be delivered separately,
it needs to be separated from the ERP and have a life of its own with
clear documentation and a distribution that does not include a whole lot
of seed data or bits and pieces that are not required.
The dependencies that are screwed up need to be fixed.
Now is the time to make a decision about the framework.
1- Going to replace it -> remove discussion about having a framework
product from all documentation and web sites
2 - Going to muddle along with existing dependency structure and merged
distribution -> remove from docs until ready to turn it into a product.
3 - Going to commit to framework as a product -> fix code and seed data
to have a distribution for the framework, fix docs to clearly describe
the framework and its use. I would prefer to see the framework as a
separate sub-project with a technical team of people with expertise and
interest in persistence, caching, performance, etc. supporting it and
"marketing" it to other developers rather than keeping it mixed in with
a product that is sold based on support for business process. (No
surprise here).
There is no right or wrong answer but the current approach seems a bit
muddled and negatively affects the project's ability to project a clear
vision.
It would be nice if this decision was made soon so that we can get the
documentation cleaned up.
Ron
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
