On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Please use a proper subject for your email request?
+1
I generally have to do a double-take on these messages. I don't want to mark
things from the list as spam because I don't want my mail client to mark
everything from the list as spam, but
>
> Some of your other assertions are not quite correct either. For example, if
> you want to use another Java web UI technology you can do it in container,
> even in an OFBiz webapp with other OFBiz stuff, with no problem. Just add it
> to the web.xml file like you would in any ot
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Why Mule rather than ServiceMix? I can't see much diff. between them.
ServiceMix is more strongly based on W3C WS where Mule is more open to
different transports. I felt for my application that Mule would be more
performant, although I pre
Sorry, I didn't see this thread when I wrote my previous email. If it should
be resent to this thread, please let me know.
Cheers, Brian
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This thread is about where you want the community to go with the underlying
> core components
Hi Pierre,
By your inquiry on the future, do you mean with specific features in the
applications or how they work together?
As an architect, I am interested in not just an ability to integrate my
application against OFBiz, but allow my application to take part in message
orchestration by patch
On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".
Ruth, are you a committer to OFBiz? On any open source projects anywhere?
Nobody has an obligation to serve you or your needs. To say this kind of thing
once might be co
On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:15 AM, David E Jones wrote:
> Have you ever worked with a system that was architected in this way?
I'm building it now, been working on it ever since letting go of OFBiz and
finding my weak efforts to make start such a drastic rewrite were going to take
more effort than
On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something
> that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens
> of small parts I don't think it ca
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with
> OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same
> thing, and so there are constant fights about what should go into the single
> pot?
>
>
On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
>
> Why don't we disc
Yes, I would like to work with this too. I am a very active Wicket user and
have done a number of sites with it. Last year, I built an application and
converted a couple of GWT users over to it -- if by conversion I mean that the
next sites they did for their own companies now use it!
On Aug
11 matches
Mail list logo
