Hi Bruno,
I think your plan makes a lot of sense and I also agree with your
spreadsheet.
We should work on the buildbot to report and enforce correct dependencies.
Cheers,
Chris
Bruno Busco wrote:
Chris,
I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components
dependency
Also, splitting components down into small functional areas could have
the benefit that if you just want WorkEffort core + parties, you
wouldn't get the UI contributions from WorkEffort fixed assets.
Development would be more difficult as you would be working across
multiple files. However,
Chris,
I think we should at first concentrate into enforcing a components
dependency hierarchy.
This is my plan:
We should select core or framework components that are the
minimum must be installed in order to have a running OFBiz.
Then we should say: additional component A can be installed if
not sure if you look at the UI but there are permission you can use for
which UI are available to which login via permissions and roles.
as far as components you can hide a whole component in the web.xml and
still have access to it.
The artifact in webtools lets you see association with services,
Hi BJ,
sorry but what I meant for configuration is different from what I
see you addressed in these jiras.
For configuration I mean a defined set of components that are supposed
to work without any other component in the installation.
-Bruno
2010/2/7 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net:
both Hans
for that use the datamodel books and look at the data in each
application and see if it uses data from other applications.
if it does there is a dependency.
Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/7/2010 1:57 AM:
Hi BJ,
sorry but what I meant for configfoation is different from what I
see you
Thanks for the feedback Adrian. Would it be worth me writing a tool that
runs as part of the build process that reports on the dependencies? It
could throw a warning/error when a new invalid dependency is checked in?
Chris,
Framework independence has been a goal for quite a while. There is
A tool would certainly help. If such a tool was included in OFBiz, then it
would have to be compatible with the Apache license.
-Adrian
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Snow sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk wrote:
From: Chris Snow sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk
Subject: Re: what a mess! is framework
We can probably start with something simple: add an ant task that simply builds
the framework (applications and specialpurpose will be ignored) and then an ant
task to run the framework only.
This will require some minor tweaks to the base component loading mechanism,
but it should be trivial.
Shall I raise a jira for this? Is there any documentation on the build and
test process for ofbiz? e.g. does buildbot run ofbiz and run any tests?
We can probably start with something simple: add an ant task that simply
builds the framework (applications and specialpurpose will be ignored) and
Yes, follow Jacopo's suggestion: create an ant task to build framework only,
then run the framework only
*shrug* I don't know what that means.
Maybe have a Selenium task that checks to see if it actually runs on its own.
I'm not real clear on how that would work, but it would definitely be
This is something we discussed in the DEV ML:
http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@ofbiz.apache.org/msg36156.html
-Bruno
2010/2/6 Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com:
Yes, follow Jacopo's suggestion: create an ant task to build framework only,
then run the framework only
*shrug* I don't know what
Hi Bruno,
What are the current points of view on what should be included in the
framework?
Many thanks,
Chris
Bruno Busco wrote:
This is something we discussed in the DEV ML:
http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@ofbiz.apache.org/msg36156.html
-Bruno
2010/2/6 Adrian Crum
Chris,
I think we have not moved very forward.
We still have at least this page:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution
and the page you have written:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Ofbiz+as+a+development+framework
some comments in the
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
I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet
that we could use to track the dependecies issue down.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/9373097/OFBIZ+COMP+DEPENDENCIES.xls?version=1
Hope this helps. It is not yet completed.
Please fille free to
The complete url for the confluence page is:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution
2010/2/6 Bruno Busco bruno.bu...@gmail.com:
I have updated the framework-only confluence page with an excel sheet
that we could use to track the dependecies issue down.
Good work Bruno! I'm putting some thought into the dependency issues -
I will provide some more feedback when I have a clearer view. However,
my current view is this:
1) Developers should be able have a standalone framework
2) Developers should be able to install components to meet certain
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
