I propose to do any work on this in another branch to prevent any distraction in trunk until this change is fully established. I assume that this is going to be a longer task...
Regards, Michael Am 29.08.18 um 12:36 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Yes you are right, I'll start a discussion on user ML.I already know that Pierre Smits uses it for his own projects, and indeed we know there are more people using it.This said it should not prevent us to deprecate it and users to continue to use it based on R17 branch.They could then switch later to the replacing feature. If we do so, we should try to deliver a migration tool, maybe with their interested help...At the end it's the dev community to decide, we can get blocked by our users, notably because there are issues pending for too long, w/o much interest.Let's see on user ML Jacques Le 29/08/2018 à 12:05, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :Multi-tenancy complicates things, and the code could be made simpler by removing it in many areas of the system. So technically, I'm for that. However, the issue here is whether enough people depend on it. I saw multiple questions in the mailing list in the past about multi-tenancy in the past, so I'm just not sure if people depend on it or not. Maybe shooting that question in the user ML would help shed some perspective on it? With our appreciation for all the good work people are doing in their projects, I think we should be focused on OFBiz and what is best for _this_ project. If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to bake our own bread. On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote:Hi,The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs! I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly delivered, but it was only a start.After many improvements, this feature still have some issues https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065 Also this is somehow related https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712 And most importantly https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754 I recently read this articlehttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with theclouds being everywhere!Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, seehttps://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 [1][1] Initially David gave me this linkhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a multi-instances way?Opinions? Jacques
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
