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 th
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
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
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
>>> o
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.
Netw
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 g
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) fram
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
> Me too, however with the current dependencies ,framework effectively depends
> on applications anyway.
And in fact we have to fix this.
Jacopo
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I am against moving party in the framework; we can discuss if
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 gr
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 th
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 just
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 fra
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 i
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
there is a ant build target
create-admin-user-login
do a ant -p
Ruth Hoffman sent the following on 2/26/2010 12:56 PM:
> Hi Chris:
> If user management is included in the following, then I agree. I don't
> think I've ever created an application that didn't have at least an
> administrative user.
Hi Chris:
If user management is included in the following, then I agree. I don't
think I've ever created an application that didn't have at least an
administrative user.
If not I'd add (basic) user management.
Ruth
Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Anil,
I believe a standalone application develop
Christopher Snow wrote:
> Hi Anil,
>
> I believe a standalone application development framework should have all
> the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e.
>
> - persistence
> - services
> - presentation tier
> - reporting
> - help
> - security management
> - job schedule
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 pa
In fact Yes, I think birt should not be in framework as well. But its ok,
because a) because it does not really have any database dependency b) Its third
party library integration so the code in Ofbiz framework will not change as
much.
Ideally, Yes I will like it to be out of the framework :)
Hi Anil,
I suppose you could argue that birt should be a plugin too? Not every
app needs reporting and birt does add a lot of overhead.
Cbeers,
Chris
Anil Patel wrote:
Chris,
I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can
be added to system. Delivery of Hel
Chris,
I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can
be added to system. Delivery of Help should be controlled by screen design.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz"
On Feb 26, 2010, a
Me too, however with the current dependencies ,framework effectively
depends on applications anyway.
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I am against moving party in the framework; we can discuss if a portion of the
content should be moved there.
Jacopo
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Anil Patel wrote:
Hi Anil,
I believe a standalone application development framework should have all
the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e.
- persistence
- services
- presentation tier
- reporting
- help
- security management
- job scheduler
- audit trail
Cheers,
Chris
Anil Patel w
I am against moving party in the framework; we can discuss if a portion of the
content should be moved there.
Jacopo
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Anil Patel wrote:
> I rather see it differently.
> Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out
> there. I will rather h
I rather see it differently.
Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there.
I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and
Party into framework.
I think we should do
/framework, /baseapps, /applications
We can put all those core com
I asked if you had looked at the patch because it cannot be committed as is
since it will disable all components except for the framework ones and party +
content.
The only piece that has a place in a framework only release is the framework,
anything else will get constant push back because it
Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning:
"help" would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends
on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components.
By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone
framewo
Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be
committed.
Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would
like to see the party and content application components included in a
framework only release?
Thanks
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.h
Christopher Snow wrote:
> Bruno's question:
>
> "So could we please review the patch?
> Does it make sense?"
>
> If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it?
See my comments in the issue.
Bruno's question:
"So could we please review the patch?
Does it make sense?"
If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it?
Scott Gray wrote:
What exactly are you requesting that people vote on?
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 26/02/2010, at 12:15
What exactly are you requesting that people vote on?
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
> Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without
> breaking anything!
>
> This is a small but important step t
Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without
breaking anything!
This is a small but important step towards framework independence...
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505
Many thanks in advance,
Chris
32 matches
Mail list logo
