Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Thanks Erwan, I forgot about it, keeping it somewhere now Jacques From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" Le 27/01/2011 12:29, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" Le 27/01/2011 11:50, Scott Gray a écrit : Erwan, could you give us a summary on how it works, from a technical POV? Few s

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Le 27/01/2011 12:29, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" Le 27/01/2011 11:50, Scott Gray a écrit : Erwan, could you give us a summary on how it works, from a technical POV? Few sentences should be enough... Thanks Jacques Hi Jacques and all, here is some info I wrote som

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I think this is the best way to move forward and will keep current development going while working on new ideas on new generation framework. Thanks, Raj On Friday 28 January 2011 09:16 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: That sounds like a workabl

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > That sounds like a workable solution to me as well. > > But why move parts of the current code of the product (as is it is now) > outside of the ASF' repo? > > Looking at Commons in JIRA I see several related projects. We could do this > for O

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

oops mean Adrian. BJ Freeman sent the following on 1/27/2011 10:53 PM: Just a note David I agree with Adam when more than one has a view that agree, would not that mean they might have a valid point. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Just a note David I agree with Adam when more than one has a view that agree, would not that mean they might have a valid point. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation Specialtymark

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On 1/27/2011 7:28 PM, David E Jones wrote: On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 1/26/2011 11:56 PM, David E Jones wrote: No, the discussion is not, but your response here is "inherently bureaucratic". You wrote: "Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch is

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > On 1/26/2011 11:56 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> No, the discussion is not, but your response here is "inherently >> bureaucratic". >> >> You wrote: "Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch >> is created we can discuss thes

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On 1/26/2011 11:56 PM, David E Jones wrote: No, the discussion is not, but your response here is "inherently bureaucratic". You wrote: "Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch is created we can discuss these ideas." That's some serious push-back... MAYBE after the 11.x b

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

The biggest issue with interdependency in the "base applications" (ie those in the ofbiz/applications directory) is that of the data model. The nature of business data is that it is pretty much all related other other areas of the business data. This is based on the fact that not much happens i

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I wasn't speaking for you - I was commenting on your recent replies and Jacopo's suggestion that the PMC has done something wrong to cause them. As a member of the community and a participant in this discussion, I reserve the right to do so. We already know you would like to change the PMC

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

One more thing: I did not "give up on participating in this community". I never said I was, nor do I think my behavior related to this community has demonstrated any such things. I just started another project. -David On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:22 AM, adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: >

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

looking at the data model book, I don't see how to do that at the data level. then you have ones perception of what should go where. good example is Agreements. I believe it should be in party but it is currently in Accounting. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Sup

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Sorry Adrian, you're speaking for me, not based on anything I've written, and you couldn't be more wrong. The point is not to be able to make innovative changes without discussion and planning, the point is to be able to setup the project structure to facilitate innovative changes and insulate

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I agree with you Adrian, any major rewrites or changes are probably best done in a way to not affect the active trunk, especially when it is has been a while since a release branch and we are close to the 2011 one (we could really do it any time I support). But, there is no reason to rush it e

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

This is an interesting point on its own. OFBiz started with a heavy ecommerce emphasis, but I think it would be interesting to move that to another project and open the way for competing ecommerce apps too... -David On Jan 27, 2011, at 3:47 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > I agree that ecommerce is s

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Thanks Scott, this is exactly the approach I'd prefer to see and I agree it would avoid a lot of the conflict (not more tragedy of the commons) and allow for greater growth for the project, and opportunities for individuals to do something. -David On Jan 27, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Scott Gray wrot

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

another solution is to get people committed to a part of the code and establish a communication form where all contribute. This has worked well in a formal commercial enviorement. So even though this is a community effort why can't we take from a commercial model that works. the Biggest piece I s

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I have created https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbizaddons/ when ofbiz was at version 3. this also allows people to get donations or their work. Based on the conversation on this thread, I don't a addon manager will deal with lack of compatibility and migration. = BJ Free

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

#1 I can see the problem with backward compatibility, though I think this is confused with migration path. From the statement not to support backward and/or migration, you have created a new industry, which I am glad to fill. #2 From David statements about dumping ofbiz framework for Moqui, and

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

One thing that is important to remember is that there is a difference between real obstacles to innovation and imagined ones. David expressed frustration with the inability to innovate due to push back from a few people who insist on backward compatibility. That is a real obstacle. I am hop

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Great post, I agree completely. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so > here will do) > > IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every > time a new feature is committed you have a

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Thanks - I understand now. I apologize if I over-asserted myself. I wasn't trying to be a bureaucrat. My suggestion wasn't push-back - it was a suggestion based on the current level of activity in the community. It seems everyone is really busy right now, so in my mind starting a major rewrite

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I think that we should separate everything so nothing depends on each other and then provide release bundles so that new users to the system are presented with a package that includes the everything and the kitchen sink but also instructions on how to turn it off if they don't want it, while eve

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Copied from http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_launches 14 December 2010 – The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) today announced apache-extras.org, the Google-hosted site for code associated with Apache projects that are not part of the Foundation's more than

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Crudely put, but nonetheless true. And all can have their place in the OFBiz ecosystem. Even HumanRes could be considered a SpecialApp. Which of the current set of core apps should stay in? And which not? Your opinions please. Regards, Pierre 2011/1/27 Scott Gray > If they have a user base th

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

If they have a user base then what does it matter? If people care then they'll look after them and if not then they'll die, either way it's one less thing to worry about. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 28/01/2011, at 1:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Project Manager

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Project Manager, POS? Even maybe My Portal and AssetMaint? Jacques Scott Gray wrote: I agree that ecommerce is significantly important enough that it should be kept under project control but I don't believe for a second that the other special purpose components benefit from being in the main

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I agree that ecommerce is significantly important enough that it should be kept under project control but I don't believe for a second that the other special purpose components benefit from being in the main code base except that it increases their visibility. On 28/01/2011, at 12:34 AM, Jacque

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On 28/01/2011, at 12:19 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > That sounds like a workable solution to me as well. > > But why move parts of the current code of the product (as is it is now) > outside of the ASF' repo? Some of those points were just thrown out there, I'm not necessarily in favor of that and

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On 28/01/2011, at 12:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Scott Gray wrote: >> (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so >> here will do) >> >> IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every >> time a new feature is committed you have an add

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On 28/01/2011, at 12:02 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > Le 27/01/2011 11:50, Scott Gray a écrit : >> (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so >> here will do) >> >> IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every >> time a new feature i

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Another interesting idea, competing with Erwan's. I'd also prefer to keep things in ASF repo if possible... We could have a distinction between components, important one (eCommerce, ...) still in ASF repo, others more peripheric, (ebay, Google, Oagis, etc.) out of it? Jacques From: "Pierre Sm

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" Le 27/01/2011 11:50, Scott Gray a écrit : (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so here will do) IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every time a new feature is committed you have an additional potent

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

That sounds like a workable solution to me as well. But why move parts of the current code of the product (as is it is now) outside of the ASF' repo? Looking at Commons in JIRA I see several related projects. We could do this for OFBiz too. Split up in to several sub projects, have for each sub p

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Scott Gray wrote: (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so here will do) IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every time a new feature is committed you have an additional potential audience that must be kept happy and our ability

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so here > will do) > > IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every > time a new feature is committed you have an additional potential audience

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Le 27/01/2011 11:50, Scott Gray a écrit : (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so here will do) IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every time a new feature is committed you have an additional potential audience that must be ke

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

(With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short piece so here will do) IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. Every time a new feature is committed you have an additional potential audience that must be kept happy and our ability to please everybody

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I think these new idea should be separated form the current code base. It should be a new generation of the OFBiz while development still continues on the current one. As I said before, Eclipse 4.0 and Eclipse 3.0 are the prefect example. Mouqi could be the start for the new generation OFbiz (O

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Maybe now the time is ripe to take the discussion regarding the road ahead further and split it into new threads with topics that enable us to focus and have healthy and constructive discussions. So that we indeed can get to a workable and accepted plan for upcoming releases of the product and an

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Thank you Adrian. Yes, I think that issuing another release branch before the switch would be a good idea; I am pretty sure that an important decision like this will take some good time before it is widely accepted :-) Jacopo On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Jacopo, > > Your

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I have noticed some negative trends happening to us in the last (1-2) years: * a dramatic decrease of design discussions and an increase in commits * committers are often working for themselves and not for the greater good of the project ("if a customer pays me to do something then it will be also

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

No, the discussion is not, but your response here is "inherently bureaucratic". You wrote: "Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch is created we can discuss these ideas." That's some serious push-back... MAYBE after the 11.x branch we can DISCUSS these ideas? Hints at

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. From my perspective, we're having a discussion. Is discussion inherently bureaucratic? -Adrian On 1/26/2011 10:48 PM, David E Jones wrote: Adrian, Thanks for writing this. It is an excellent example of the paradigm of bureaucracy in action. -David On Ja

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Adrian, Thanks for writing this. It is an excellent example of the paradigm of bureaucracy in action. -David On Jan 26, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Jacopo, > > Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch is created we > can discuss these ideas. > > -Adrian >

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I'll respond here to Adrian's comments below, and to what Raj and others have written as well. Backwards compatibility is a huge issue, but I suppose that is as much a symptom as it is a disease in and of itself. The underlying issue is bureaucracy. If I wanted to spend all my time chatting w

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

ll submitted together as one big form. >>> >>>> Currently, OFBiz widget also doesn't natively support changing part of >>>> the >>>> form according to what the user selects. >>> >>> Could you be more specific, ie what does this mean? >>&

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Jacopo, Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch is created we can discuss these ideas. -Adrian On 1/26/2011 2:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: There are so many interesting topics in this thread and for now I will comment on few of them (in spare order): 1) backward c

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

IMO that has more to do with following established procedures and guidelines and educating committers. And sticking to them. Reverting when code has been implemented when not being agreed upon. It might be a pain in the beginning, but proving it worth in the end. I know that ASF allows discretiona

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

From: "Pierre Smits" If we have the consensus, a documented approach and the structure in place the participants will follow. Some of current community will step out and new enthousiast will get on board. What do you mean with 'better control of code access permissions'? David expressed he is

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

If we have the consensus, a documented approach and the structure in place the participants will follow. Some of current community will step out and new enthousiast will get on board. What do you mean with 'better control of code access permissions'? Anyway, I am, and always have been, willing to

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" There are so many interesting topics in this thread and for now I will comment on few of them (in spare order): 1) backward compatibility: we already have to stable release branches (and we will probably create another one soon) and users can use them and be sure tha

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

There are so many interesting topics in this thread and for now I will comment on few of them (in spare order): 1) backward compatibility: we already have to stable release branches (and we will probably create another one soon) and users can use them and be sure that future releases *within* t

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Many of the things listed here have been discussed, and as far as I can tell, there is no objection to making those changes - we just need the manpower to do it. Item #7 has been discussed and there hasn't been any argument against that change - except that it touches on the backwards-compatib

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

David, I agree with you that a complete overhaul or rather a new design of the OFBiz framework is needed taking into new ideas and new technologies into consideration. Moreover, as any software grows and matures it becomes extremely difficult to make changes due to the backward compatibility

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

This thread is pushing buttons that haven't been pushed in a while... but they have certainly been pushed before (in the mailing lists, if you like history). Unfortunately this will bring out more of my jaded attitude towards various things... ;) Right now Apache OFBiz is fairly mature (no hug

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

I agree, though I am biased, Apache OFBiz IS the best thing out there. However, I don't think OFBiz is the best thing that COULD be out there. That said, I don't think that everyone should take the approach I am taking. If everyone did, there would be too much competition for me. On the other h

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

David: Thanks for elaborating. IMHO, nothing you have outlined here is a show stopper. What a shame that you can't see what others (many others...I'm finding more each day) can clearly see: OFBiz is the best thing out there. It may not be perfect in your eyes, but another framework isn't the a

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

This doesn't make sense... what does "valid" mean in what you wrote? Trying to understand more generally: are you arguing against progress in general, or just in the case of OFBiz? Do you still drive the first car you ever bought, or a more recently manufactured one of the same design? Wait...

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

what I pick up is you are saying ofbiz is no longer valid and now Moqui is. How I evaluate that is what is to say that Moqui also will not be valid at some point so why invest in Moqui. = BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On Jan 25, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > On 1/25/11 2:06 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> All of that said, now that Moqui is starting to take shape I find the OFBiz >> Framework to be cumbersome and inconsistent in many ways (things that are >> hard to fix, but that are not surprising giv

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Well said! I would only add..."leadership" to the mix. A plan needs leadership to galvanize the community to move in a positive direction. Regards, Ruth On 1/25/11 6:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: IMO, marketing has to do with managing (and steering) expectations. For the generally accepted explan

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Having just spend 6 months working in a mixed OpenTaps, OFBiz 9.x environment, all I can say is: "What a mess". Thankfully I do not have to support the core project base - only my small piece. I still have not found the value in the OpenTaps/Hibernate implementation. Maybe, someday, I'll see th

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

When you do a search on 'Business Application Framework' in either google or wikipedia you'll see a lot of references. In wikipedia I see the Oracle Application Framework and the SAP Composite Application Framework. But not OFBiz on the first page. It ranks somewhere around 70. As we all agree tha

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

It is certainly true that the OFBiz Framework includes web application framework elements, but many of the tools listed on that wikipedia page are ONLY web app frameworks and are not more comprehensive enterprise app frameworks. In other words they are mostly UI level things without the servic

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

IMO, marketing has to do with managing (and steering) expectations. For the generally accepted explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing Marketing OFBiz to either the development community or others will always be an uphill battle, when you don't have a plan. And I think that is the

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

This is a good question that basically provides context for what we've been discussing. Why use a framework like the OFBiz Framework or Moqui when there are so many other frameworks out there? 1. nearly all frameworks out there follow and "object-mapping" approach (everything is mapped to obje

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Interesting to note that you did not turn to OpenBravo (joke ;o) Jacques Jonatan Soto wrote: Very interesting threat indeed. As a developer I find Ofbiz hard to sell because it has no impact on the mass market where "cutting-edge" technologies rules it, like Struts was or Spring, Hibernate, et

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

>> (we could add it though?) Yes, we should add OFBiz in the list. -- Regards Ashish Vijaywargiya HotWax Media - est. 1997 On Tuesday 25 January 2011 04:11 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: OFBiz is not even in this list, I believe because it's not only a web framework but rather an ERP using mostly

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

OFBiz is not even in this list, I believe because it's not only a web framework but rather an ERP using mostly web as UI (we could add it though?) Jacques Sam Hamilton wrote: Can I perhaps ask the stupid question of the thread, the non-developer as I am reading the dev list... as I understand

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Can I perhaps ask the stupid question of the thread, the non-developer as I am reading the dev list... as I understand it when OFBiz was started there were no mature frameworks that did what OFBiz wanted to do so you guys created one to fill the void which over time has evolved into what I gathe

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

Very interesting threat indeed. As a developer I find Ofbiz hard to sell because it has no impact on the mass market where "cutting-edge" technologies rules it, like Struts was or Spring, Hibernate, etc are for example. Companies are demanding concrete skills to developers so it's obvious that dev

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

ns I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira issue in August) Thanks Jacques -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3234277.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

From: "David E Jones" On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Having said that, I believe some things in OFBiz could benefit from ORM. Like a postal address for example. A postal address entity could be supplied to an object factory to create a postal address object. That object coul

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Having said that, I believe some things in OFBiz could benefit from ORM. Like > a postal address for example. A postal address entity could be supplied to an > object factory to create a postal address object. That object could have > built-in

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

screen definition. >>>>>>>> Before any improvement can be made to use the screen definition, OFBiz >>>>>>>> should understand why a layer of POJOs should exist between the screen >>>>>>>> definition and renderers. >>>>>>>

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

ubmitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) proposing to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about pros and cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he create

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

ing part of >>> the >>> form according to what the user selects. >> >> Could you be more specific, ie what does this mean? >> >> -David >> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3235394.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

more specific, ie what does this mean? > > -David > > > -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3235394.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

submitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) proposing to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about pros and cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira is

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

>>>>> with that requirement efficiently. Now they want to move to web-based. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many OFBiz's forms are based on the tables instead of business objects. >>>>>>> This >>>>>>> mean the user have to click here and there in order to edit the forms. >

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:06 PM, james_sg wrote: > I didn't use OFBiz widget because the user wants to create or edit the > header and items information in one screen before saving them in one go. Actually, it does support that. I've even done screens with multiple forms (single and tabular) all su

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

>>>> definition >>>> way. >>>> >>>> It will be good if OFbiz add a layer of POJOs between screen widgets >>>> and >>>> the >>>> renderer. >>>> >>>> Hope I am clear. >>>> >>>>

Re: Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

ickly read) proposing to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about pros and cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira issue in August) Thanks

Marketing OFBiz and the OFBiz non-object approach (was Re: Wicket in OFBiz)

gt;>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> >>>>>> It's quite clear, and IMO you did an excellent and interesting work. >>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't know if we will find enough interest in >>>>>> the

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

o introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about pros and cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira issue in August) Thanks Jacques -- View this messag

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

Ok, I agree one con about it, is maintenance. >>>>> >>>>> The reason is because the screen renderer in OFBiz is tightly coupled >>>>> with >>>>> the screen definition. >>>>> Since this implementation i

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

t as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about pros and cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira issue in August) Thanks Jacques -- View this message in context: http://

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

;> Regards, >>> james >>> >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> James yong submitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) >>>> proposing >>>> to i

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

From: "Bilgin Ibryam" On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: Hi devs, James yong submitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) proposing to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

d cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira issue in August) Thanks Jacques -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3234277.html Sent from the OFBiz - D

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Hi devs, > > James yong submitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) proposing > to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to > read your comments about pros and cons > N

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

t;>> be interested to read your comments about pros and cons >>> Note the urlrewrite stuff... >>> >>> One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, >>> he >>> created the Jira issue in August) >>> >>> Thanks &g

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, he created the Jira issue in August) Thanks Jacques -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3234277.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Wicket in OFBiz

> > > -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3234277.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Wicket in OFBiz

Hi devs, James yong submitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) proposing to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's be interested to read your comments about pros and cons Note the urlrewrite stuff... One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still aroun

Re: Using Apache Wicket in Ofbiz presentation layer

Hi Ean, Below is the modification of the example you have given as per what I propose. Groovy: def user = dispatcher.runSync("getSpecialUser", []) context.userDetails = { user }; FTL: <#if(userDetails != null)> $user.firstName

Re: Using Apache Wicket in Ofbiz presentation layer

> > -- > Ean Schuessler, CTO > e...@brainfood.com > 214-720-0700 x 315 > Brainfood, Inc. > http://www.brainfood.com > > > -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Using-Apache-Wicket-in-Ofbiz-presentation-layer-tp975468p977544.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Using Apache Wicket in Ofbiz presentation layer

On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:40 -0800, Vasanth Kamatgi wrote: > . > But, I would see some merit in continuing > the discussion to find the silver bullet for decoupling at rendering stage. > :) it is called proof of concept? -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

  1   2   >