Hi Adam,
What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made
ofbiz more modular?
Many thanks,
Chris
Adam Heath wrote:
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam,
I too would like to see a more modular ofbiz (e.g. maven + osgi), but
that is a big step. For example, it would be
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
This is what I am also trying to do.
Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party
and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working.
I think this has to be done into two separate and independent steps:
1)
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam,
What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made
ofbiz more modular?
Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network.
Network resources may not be available in all cases. Plus, network
resources can become stale, and go
Hi Adam, do you know of any tools available that meet these requirements?
Adam Heath wrote:
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam,
What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made
ofbiz more modular?
Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on anything from the network.
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam, do you know of any tools available that meet these requirements?
Um, I may be going out on a limb here, but ant?
Adam Heath wrote:
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam,
What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made
ofbiz more modular?
Thanks for this Adam. These are great points maven versus ant.
-David
On Feb 27, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam,
What would be your preferred tool for managing the builds if we made
ofbiz more modular?
Must be stand-alone. Can't depend on
Please excuse my ignorance...
If the ofbiz src tree was split up into new svn projects (e.g. entity
engine, service engine, etc) , would ant be able to easily manage the
dependencies between each project?
If maven doesn't do the job of managing dependencies very well, what
about ivy?
Many
David E Jones wrote:
Thanks for this Adam. These are great points maven versus ant.
It may be possible to do what I want with maven. But the fact that in
*all* cases where I have had the horror of seeing maven used by a
project, they have *all* been network based, required maven installed
in
You haven't gone far enough.
Stop thinking about just what you want. Or just what Bruno wants. Or
what the guy from Timbuktu wants.
Think about what we all want.
Namely, the ability to pick and choose the parts of ofbiz that we want
to make use of.
Arbitrary assignments of components into
This is what I am also trying to do.
Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party
and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working.
Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework.
The framework, if you like how it is right now, can stay there
Bruno Busco wrote:
This is what I am also trying to do.
Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party
and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working.
Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework.
The framework, if you like how it is
Adam Heath wrote:
Bruno Busco wrote:
This is what I am also trying to do.
Just have the possibility to *remove* all the applications but party
and content from an OFBiz installation and have it working.
Please stop thinking about moving things in or out of the framework.
The framework, if
Hi Adam,
I too would like to see a more modular ofbiz (e.g. maven + osgi), but
that is a big step. For example, it would be great if people wanting to
use just the entity engine could just download the entity engine jars
and be up and running.
However, what Bruno and I are proposing is
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Adam,
I too would like to see a more modular ofbiz (e.g. maven + osgi), but
that is a big step. For example, it would be great if people wanting to
use just the entity engine could just download the entity engine jars
and be up and running.
Ew! You said the
14 matches
Mail list logo
