On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Having said that, I believe some things in OFBiz could benefit from ORM. Like 
> a postal address for example. A postal address entity could be supplied to an 
> object factory to create a postal address object. That object could have 
> built-in behaviors - like rendering itself correctly based on its locale. Or 
> knowing its geolocation. Little things like that might benefit from ORM,

Perhaps I am too set in my ways, but when I think of creating something generic 
to format an address I think of that as a UI-level thing, preferably 
represented in something as close to the UI as possible.

Based on that I'd rather have an FTL macro (or a few for different output 
types, different preferred formats like one line versus many lines, etc), and 
when that doesn't fit then do a custom template based on the data itself.

> The last time I checked in on OpenTaps they seemed to be going in the 
> direction of ORM and DSL. Maybe there could be some lessons learned from that.

Old habits die hard. I imagine that OpenTaps gets as much, or likely more, 
pressure to use "standard" technologies than OFBiz itself does. They have also 
had key developers from the very beginning that didn't like the patterns in the 
OFBiz Framework and they immediately started replacing it and writing new code 
using different tools. The result is quite an impressive pile of code and list 
of tools used (even larger than the amazingly bloated list for OFBiz!).

For those who haven't spent much time developing with object-mapping-oriented 
tools and don't believe that they are more of a pain, by all means try a small 
project. Grab the JBoss Seam stack (for example) and try building the OFBiz 
Example application (the main parts of it anyway, not the various JS/etc demo 
screens that have been added more recently) with it (after reading the docs 
about recommended practices of course, make sure you know what they think of as 
a slick way to develop to be fair).

I've worked with a number of people whose first exposure to enterprise app 
programming was with OFBiz and later had just such an experience, and the 
responses tend to be consistent in a way you can probably imagine.

All of that said, now that Moqui is starting to take shape I find the OFBiz 
Framework to be cumbersome and inconsistent in many ways (things that are hard 
to fix, but that are not surprising given the pioneering history of the OFBiz 
Framework). Those funny quirky things are likely a turn-off to prospective 
developers and I'm hoping to remove that impediment to adopting the approach.

-David


Reply via email to