> ------- Original Message ------- > From: Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: 3/17/07, 1:08:02 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Component Goals and Direction > > My abstract take on the topic... > > My take on this topic was for the longest time very similar to Jacopo's > answer. However, as I've personally moved further and further down the > learning curve and witnessed OFBiz mature month to month, my take on > this has changed slightly. My take has changed even more so in light > of the great work Adrian has done to enhance the widgets and the > relatively recent addition of the <include> element in the site-confs. > These improvements make customization so much easier that it pushes > OFBiz applications in my mind as examples as opposed to solutions which > is much better for the community. > > Given the following caveats, which I believe are pretty solid as we've > seen quite a bit of disappointment from those who have come and gone > from the community when these are not understood amply. If these > caveats aren't correct then obviously my line of abstract thinking > isn't either. > > 1) The application components are to be generic representations of > common business practices > 2) There are very few companies that will be able to use OFBiz > applications OOTB regardless of the amount effort put into the > applications
The ootb ofbiz applications are meant to be used as-is, and many people are using them this way. The ones in the applications directory are, however, NOT meant to the most efficient flow or set of fields for a certain company or type of company. They are meant to be generic and usable in any circumstances supported by ofbiz. If you want something more streamlined, then customization for a specific company or type of company is necessary. > 3) Every company has too many specific needs to rely on a cookie cutter > approach to handle their business on the whole. Not necessarily. It would depend on how streamlined they need it to be. > 4) OFBiz should not be used in a mission critical environment without > ample needs analysis This very true, but it is important to remember that this isn't unique to ofbiz. To a certain degree iti is even true of small applications like quickbooks. > The application components should ideally convey the following > information in order of importance. > 1) A robust data model that can maintain the majority (if not all) of > data regarding the particular business concept and their relationships > to other business concepts. > 2) An array of services that can maintain a majority of the business > processes for that business concept. > 3) Stability > 4) Security > 5) Scalability These last three are important for everything... Not sure why they fit in with the rest of stuff in the list... > Those 5 are appropriate goals for the core components because they do > not necessitate thinking of a particular user. The last three on the > list are likely the first three on a list for the framework. (that > covers Stable and Universal on Jacopo's list) > > Easy to customize comes from adhering more to the following concepts > 1) M-V-C model > 2) Semantic Markup > 3) Greater use of Widgets > 4) Separation of templates so that each does one thing, and one thing > well > > OFBiz does well here, but there's always room for improvement. > > I consider user-friendliness to be the last thought with regard to the > base applications, but at the top of the list for the specialized apps. This is a bit of a dangerous guideline too... These applications should DEFINITELY be user friendly, but keep in miNd that they are generic and so a very important part of user friendliness can NOT be put in them. But yes, we should do everything else we can to make them easy to use. > If user-friendliness interferes at all with demonstrating business > concepts or business processes, it shouldn't be added to the base > applications regardless of the amount of benefit it may show. The > reason for this is simply the concept of user-friendly predicates that > you have a user in mind. There is certainly benefit in > user-friendliness but that's best demonstrated in specialized apps. I think most of this is correct, but perhaps the distinctions above will help clarify how and why. -David > > Thanks for the feedback! > > ,Chris > --- Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > There has been some light discussion in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-822 on how the > > application > > components are maintained, their goals, and their direction. I'd like > > to get some feedback as to how the larger community feels on these > > topics. > > > > > >
