On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 23:42 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: > Chris, > > Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is no > disagreement that the framework should run on its own. The > disagreements arise in what constitutes the framework. > > Let's assume for a moment that framework independence means running the > components in the framework folder independently from anything else in > OFBiz. Right away the problem with that idea is that visual themes are > in a separate folder outside the framework folder. Does framework > independence include the visual themes folder? That has not been > discussed. Then there are the multitude of dependencies upon the > applications folder.
I'm a newbie here, but I have a lot of gray hair. Seems like trying to separate dependencies by folder or subject matter is an exercise doomed to failure. TCP/IP has taken over the world because it has a clear model based on separate layers (the 7-layer OSI model). Changes on one level (like 10-base-T, to 100baseTX to Gigabit to 802.11a/b/g/n) don't affect the rest. Likewise, you can use LDAP, NIS, DNS, /etc/hostnames, or other means to map IP addresses to hostnames at the application layer-- TCP/IP doesn't care. > From my perspective, achieving this objective will require a two > pronged approach: 1) Identify the framework dependencies on outside > components, and 2) avoid introducing new framework dependencies on > outside components. This assumes the "framework" is the lowest level. If the framework depends on outside components, then the hierarchy has been upset, and spaghetti dependencies are the inevitable result. Dependencies HAVE to be unidirectional, or you never get out of the maze. IMHO, the biggest problem with MVC is that it has never seemed to me that the layers are very well defined. Everything seems pretty interdependent, and you quickly get into a rock/paper/scissors kind of analysis, as you describe. Is there a comprehensible map of the layers in OFBiz? All I have seen is very detailed charts that seem to obfuscate, rather than clarify, the relationships of the various modules. But I'm sure I have not seen everything. Is there a 30,000-foot overview of the software levels? > The first prong can be accomplished through contributions from people > like you - find the dependencies and create patches to fix them. > > The responsibility of the second prong is up to the committers. We need > to be more vigilant to guard against introducing new dependencies. Which requires a clear model of what layer the code under consideration belongs to, and what are the well-defined layers below it that can be dependencies. > > Personally I believe it will be possible, BUT it won't be easy. The > obstacles to overcome will be getting people to contribute to the > effort, and getting committers to avoid introducing new dependencies. Again, I think we need to reduce the learning curve by providing clear maps. You shouldn't need to know everything to be able to contribute meaningful and error-free code. > > -Adrian > > > --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Christopher Snow <sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk> wrote: > > > From: Christopher Snow <sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk> > > Subject: what a mess! is framework independence ever going to be possible? > > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > > Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:58 PM > > I'm back to the process of working > > out how to get a standalone framework running based on > > trunk, but I have found that the dependencies have got out > > of hand (if I've understood the code right): > > > > Framework depends on Themes > > Themes depends on Content > > Content depends on Party > > > > The questions I'm starting to ask myself are: > > > > "Is is ever going to be possible to have framework > > independence in trunk? Independence in 9.04 is > > relatively trivial (rewrite security screens) perhaps the > > most sensible thing would be to do a fork of 9.04 and then > > back port all framework related commits from trunk? " > > > > Any ideas anyone? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Chris > > > > > -- Matt Warnock <mwarn...@ridgecrestherbals.com> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
