Hi all, It's great to see there are valuable ideas and perspectives being shared.
I believe it would be difficult to address all the interesting questions and concerns each of us may have at this stage. It might be more effective to tackle them progressively, as the community gathers more information on specific topics and we can take more informed and better-targeted decisions. Moreover, some (even important) topics may not be directly relevant to the framework/application split itself, for example, how to organize entity definitions or how to structure utility classes. These are certainly worth discussing, but perhaps in a separate context. Even very relevant questions, such as “where is the dividing line between framework and applications?” or “which parts of the applications and data model will belong to the framework?”, might be more productively discussed as we proceed with concrete steps. When we start working on specific areas that require modification to achieve a cleaner decoupling, these questions will naturally become clearer. And of course, our view on aspects like the “dividing line” may evolve as we gain a better understanding of the system along the way. With that said, I think it is important to start this effort now, keeping as our guiding principles the core software design concepts of high cohesion (within components) and low coupling (between components). I believe we all agree that these principles would be beneficial. OFBiz was originally designed as a composition of various components (both framework and applications), but, unfortunately, over time their internal cohesion has decreased and their coupling has increased. Starting to move back in the opposite direction, even gradually, seems like a desirable and shared goal. We can defer some of the higher-level decisions, such as whether we’ll end up delivering two separate products (e.g., OFBiz Framework and OFBiz Applications), one combined product, or multiple specialized distributions, as well as which tools and workflows we’ll adopt to support contributors and users. These are important questions, but they don’t necessarily block us from reorganizing our codebase according to the principles mentioned above. In summary, I’d suggest we begin with small, concrete steps to improve separation and organization, addressing specific issues as they come up. If at some point we find that too limiting, we could still consider a more revolutionary approach (like a new branch for a “next-gen” framework), but for now I don’t think that’s needed. Best, Jacopo On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 12:33 PM Michael Brohl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Deepak, > > How can we establish a sound basis for decision-making for the community? > > I believe we need a more detailed plan regarding a possible separation > between applications and framework, which addresses the following > questions, among others: > > * Where is the dividing line between framework and applications? > > * Which part of the applications and the data model will be assigned to > the framework in the future (e.g., logins are required for the framework)? > > * How is the data model organized (in my opinion, it should be moved > back to the individual applications; it was outsourced to a separate > component some time ago) > > * Can we create a technical option that allows users of OFBiz > applications to configure the framework in order to remain updatable? > > * How are Util* classes organized (centrally vs. application-specific > vs. ...)? > > * etc. > > Best regards, > > Michael Brohl > > ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de > > > Am 27.10.25 um 08:20 schrieb Deepak Dixit: > > Hi Michael, > > > > I’ve created a placeholder JIRA task [1] for the suggested change so that > > we can gather all related discussions and information in a single place. > I > > don’t want to proceed further if this change is not considered beneficial > > for the overall project health. > > > > However, based on my past experience working with various clients and > > implementations, I strongly believe this direction could be highly > > beneficial for community growth and increased OFBiz adoption. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-13305 > > > > Thanks & Regards > > -- > > Deepak Dixit > > ofbiz.apache.org > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 12:23 PM Deepak Dixit <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> Thank you for sharing your detailed feedback, > >> I completely understand your perspective and agree that OFBiz’s > >> configurability and the strength of its data model are major advantages. > >> > >> > >> You’re right that components can be disabled selectively; however, > >> there are still inter-component dependencies that often prevent fully > >> isolating or unloading specific modules without impacting others. > >> > >> This means any customization usually requires patching or maintaining a > >> separate vendor branch, which complicates upgrades and long-term > >> maintenance. > >> > >> My suggestion to move applications out of the core framework isn’t > >> intended to weaken OFBiz, > >> but rather to make it more modular and flexible, > >> enabling users to adopt it as a true framework for building ERP or > >> microservice-based solutions without being constrained by the default > >> applications or the 750+ database tables that come bundled by default. > >> > >> While I agree there are other frameworks available, positioning OFBiz > this > >> way could increase adoption and community engagement, > >> especially among teams looking for a lighter and more customizable > >> foundation. > >> > >> You’re right that application maintenance could become a concern, > >> but as we’ve seen, there hasn’t been significant new functionality added > >> to the default applications in recent years. > >> Users who want the default apps can still use them, while others could > >> easily include only what they need, with upgrades remaining unaffected. > >> > >> We could even consider adding Gradle tasks or scripts to clone or > include > >> applications dynamically, making customization cleaner and easier to > >> maintain. > >> > >> I believe with proper planning, we can find a balance between > flexibility > >> and maintainability that benefits both framework and application users. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> -- > >> Deepak Dixit > >> *www.hotwax.co <http://www.hotwax.co/>* > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 2:18 AM Michael Brohl <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Deepak, > >>> > >>> interesting thoughts although I have difficulties to follow the > reasoning: > >>> > >>> If you want to build a custom ERP and don't want to use the default > >>> applications, you can simply configure the system to not load the > >>> applications. Since the datamodel is already decoupled from the single > >>> applications, you can still use the datamodel. > >>> > >>> If you also don't want to use the datamodel (which I see as one of the > >>> strength of OFBiz and essential for an ERP system), you can also > >>> configure it to not being loaded (as a whole or for parts of the > >>> datamodel). > >>> > >>> I am sceptical if the core OFBiz framework would be adopted as a > >>> framework as there are some strong alternatives out there. In my view, > >>> it ist the framework plus the datamodel, API/services and the > >>> backend/webtools making OFBiz so special. > >>> > >>> We are using OFBiz for nearly 25 years now, building complex custom > >>> projects using more or less parts of the datamodel/services and > >>> sometimes even without any UI to serve as a database plus REST API > >>> (using a very much enhanced REST-API plugin). We never had any issues > >>> with "too much functionality" because of the configurable loading > >>> mechanisms. > >>> > >>> And the datamodel is always a strong companion when it comes to the > >>> design of business cases because of it's generic design end the > >>> enhancement mechanisms. > >>> > >>> So, I do not the any "constraints" preventing anyone from using OFBiz > in > >>> many different ways. > >>> > >>> What I see as a potential problem is that the applications will suffer > a > >>> similar fate to the plugins and will no longer be maintained. Some > >>> plugins have even been gradually deactivated because no one wanted to > >>> deal with maintaining them and fixing bugs and security vulnerabilities > >>> anymore. > >>> > >>> I honestly would not be happy to see the project going this way. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Michael Brohl > >>> > >>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de > >>> > >>> > >>> Am 23.10.25 um 14:02 schrieb Deepak Dixit: > >>>> Hi Team, > >>>> > >>>> I would like to propose restructuring the OFBiz architecture by moving > >>> core > >>>> applications out of the main OFBiz framework — similar to how plugins > >>> are > >>>> currently managed. > >>>> > >>>> This change would enable developers to build *custom ERP solutions* > >>> without > >>>> being tied to all the default applications and their associated 750+ > >>>> database tables. By decoupling applications from the framework, we can > >>>> provide a lighter and more modular foundation for building > >>> domain-specific > >>>> or microservice-based solutions. > >>>> > >>>> I strongly believe this approach will *significantly increase OFBiz > >>>> adoption* and flexibility, allowing users to leverage the framework > >>> purely > >>>> as an enterprise-grade development platform rather than being > >>> constrained > >>>> by bundled modules. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks & Regards > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Deepak Dixit > >>>> >
