David Thanks for the input. As far as the "create/maintain/deploy" part, I think I have a handle on that and am comfortable with the issues involved. However, I must bow to your experience on "surprised by how capable servers are of handling concurrent load" part as I have done no testing on this at all and am therefore just making extrapolations based on single user usage.
Any insite that you have regarding the number of concurrent users per server box would be appreciated. I would hate to get too far down this road I am on only to discover that it was a waste of time. Skip -----Original Message----- From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 1:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CRM - Customer Relationship Management facilities in OFBiz You might be surprised by how expensive such a solution would be to create/maintain/deploy and how little it will help on server resources. You might also be surprised by how capable servers are of handling concurrent load, how different performance tends to be in a development versus production environment, and for certain things how easy it is to tune them once the slowest stuff has been identified. -David On Oct 3, 2007, at 1:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > David > > This issue here to me asset utilization. In a typical mid-sized > company, > there are dozens or hundreds of desktop computers that their user > use to do > their daily work. If the user is using a browser to access logic > on one of > Ofbiz servers, the desktop is under-utilized. By tying in a desktop > application to Ofbiz (i.e. running an entity engine on the desktop > tied to > the same database as the main ofbiz servers and running xml setups > identical > to the servers), that workload is performed on the users desktop > and not on > the main ofbiz servers thereby freeing the server for functionality > that > REQUIRES browser based access. > > This does not in any way supplant Ofbiz, it enhances it by > distributing the > workload and giving the clerical user a better amd more responsive > experience. > > As some examples, my recent testing of the sales order > functionality shows > that it takes ~ 200 msecs to complete the "userLogin" service or > 120 msecs > to complete "calculateProductPrice" (these numbers are from the > ofbiz log > file on a fairly fast machine with lots of debug output). If this > is all > done on the main ofbiz servers about 5 of the former and 10 of the > later can > be done simultaneously to maintain a reasonable lag time. If the > load is > spread out among say 8 desktops and 2 browser accesses, everyone has a > really good experience. > > The only drawback to this all is that if the server configuration > changes, > the desktops must be patched as well. In practice, that is not a > big issue. > > So, it makes great sense to me to write desktop applications for > common > backoffice functions. > > I am currently working on a suite of such applications, hence my > interest in > BJs SWT based CRM. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CRM - Customer Relationship Management facilities in > OFBiz > > > > I'm not sure where this thread is leading or how it's related to > OFBiz... > > In any case, there is CRM functionality in OFBiz. The first step > would be defining in a little more detail what you mean by "CRM" > since that means very different things in different companies. OFBiz > does offer a single view into customer interactions including web > site visits, phone/email/in-person/etc communications, requests, > quotes, orders, shipments, invoices, payments, balance accounts, > projects, calendar events, and many other things. You can also > classify parties for marketing and sales, and do things like > marketing campaigns including reference codes via email, snail mail, > whatever. > > If you're looking for simple desktop contact management something > like ACT or even salesforce.com would be better. If you're looking > for enterprise CRM (especially a business or industry specific > incarnation of such) then OFBiz a great basis for the effort. > > -David > > > On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I'd like to see the SWT code as it is. To heck with translating it >> to use >> web based widgets. >> >> I gotta set up a web site soon to hold code like this. >> >> Skip >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:06 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: CRM - Customer Relationship Management facilities in >> OFBiz >> >> >> basically yes. >> the tool i used added some classes to better manage things. >> http://www.elance.com/p/? >> q=eolproviderprofile&view_person=BJFreeman&catid=10 >> 182#tab=1 >> click on Java CRM >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following on 10/2/2007 8:55 PM: >>> BJ >>> >>> SWT as in Eclipse SWT? >>> >>> Skip >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:26 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: CRM - Customer Relationship Management facilities in >>> OFBiz >>> >>> >>> there at least two efforts going that i know of. >>> the data model pretty much has all that you need. >>> Si's implementation does not totally integrate with the current data >>> storage. it is built on ofbiz but is supported under opentaps. >>> Mine is something I am bringing over from Java SWT and SQL db. >>> Once I figure out how to show the UI I want in widgets I will >>> release >>> it. Currently for my clients I use a java sWT that connects to >>> ofbiz. >>> It is built entirely within the current ofbiz datamodel. >>> as soon as I get some irons of the fire will focus on it more >>> >>> >>> >>> Philip Laing sent the following on 10/2/2007 7:36 PM: >>>> Thanks for your input relating my previous questions, I am >>>> interested in >>>> implementing some sort of Helpdesk/CRM system and I am interested >>>> in what >>>> facilities OFBiz already has >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
