The biggest issue with interdependency in the "base applications" (ie those in the ofbiz/applications directory) is that of the data model. The nature of business data is that it is pretty much all related other other areas of the business data. This is based on the fact that not much happens in a business in isolation. Some higher level activities can use only lower level data elements without reverse references, but all of accounting, logistics, operations, customer service, etc, etc are pretty interdependent and need to know about each other.
Of course, that doesn't mean that all of the services and user interfaces need to know about each other. Those can be designed to be more isolated and target a specific set of business activities. In other words, IMO, the key to this is to have a "data model" component (or separate project) that is separate from the framework and separate from the applications, and that the applications can be built on. Applications could certainly extend the data model for areas specific to their needs and that don't make sense to make more general (or that are in the process of becoming part of the "official" or shared data model). -David On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Sam Hamilton wrote: > I think that we should separate everything so nothing depends on each other > and then provide release bundles so that new users to the system are > presented with a package that includes the everything and the kitchen sink > but also instructions on how to turn it off if they don't want it, while > everyone else can pick and choose what they want. Like warehouse only > application or POS only application - suppose those could also be released > too??? > > Sam > > > On 27 Jan 2011, at 20:23, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> Crudely put, but nonetheless true. >> >> And all can have their place in the OFBiz ecosystem. Even HumanRes could be >> considered a SpecialApp. Which of the current set of core apps should stay >> in? And which not? Your opinions please. >> >> Regards, >> >> Pierre >> >> 2011/1/27 Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >> >>> If they have a user base then what does it matter? If people care then >>> they'll look after them and if not then they'll die, either way it's one >>> less thing to worry about. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> HotWax Media >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>> >>> On 28/01/2011, at 1:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> Project Manager, POS? Even maybe My Portal and AssetMaint? >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> I agree that ecommerce is significantly important enough that it should >>> be kept under project control but I don't believe for a >>>>> second that the other special purpose components benefit from being in >>> the main code base except that it increases their >>>>> visibility. On 28/01/2011, at 12:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>> Another interesting idea, competing with Erwan's. I'd also prefer to >>> keep things in ASF repo if possible... >>>>>> We could have a distinction between components, important one >>> (eCommerce, ...) still in ASF repo, others more peripheric, (ebay, >>>>>> Google, Oagis, etc.) out of it? Jacques >>>>>> From: "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> That sounds like a workable solution to me as well. >>>>>>> But why move parts of the current code of the product (as is it is >>> now) >>>>>>> outside of the ASF' repo? >>>>>>> Looking at Commons in JIRA I see several related projects. We could do >>> this >>>>>>> for OFBiz too. Split up in to several sub projects, have for each sub >>>>>>> project a committed sub community of users, contributors and >>> committers. And >>>>>>> still having interaction between all. >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Pierre >>>>>>> 2011/1/27 Jacopo Cappellato <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>>> (With so many messages I don't have a good spot to say my short >>> piece so >>>>>>>> here will do) >>>>>>>>> IMO our problems will only increase with the size of the code base. >>>>>>>> Every time a new feature is committed you have an additional >>> potential >>>>>>>> audience that must be kept happy and our ability to please everybody >>>>>>>> continues to decrease. Unhappy people don't work well together so >>> things >>>>>>>> just keep getting worse. >>>>>>>>> Solution? Decrease the size of the code base and included features >>> and >>>>>>>> increase the ability for the community to share contributions outside >>> of the >>>>>>>> ASF's repo. Decrease the load on the committers and let the rest of >>> the >>>>>>>> community put their money where their mouth is. >>>>>>>>> Some ideas (feasible or not): >>>>>>>>> - Pull out all of the themes except one and move each one to google >>> code >>>>>>>> or wherever if there is someone interested in looking after each one. >>>>>>>>> - Then do the same for the bulk of the special purpose apps. >>>>>>>>> - Separate the framework from the applications. >>>>>>>>> - Remove any framework features that aren't used by the applications >>> or >>>>>>>> are of relatively low value and allow them to be dropped in by users >>> when >>>>>>>> they need them. >>>>>>>>> - Perhaps even take another look at the possibility of reducing the >>>>>>>> dependencies among the core apps and splitting them (I'd gladly >>> welcome 100 >>>>>>>> new committers to the humanres app because I have no interest in it). >>>>>>>>> - Turn the payment and shipping gateway implementations into drop in >>>>>>>> components along with any other pieces of code that are suitable for >>>>>>>> extraction >>>>>>>>> - Investigate ways to allow plug-in modification of apps and >>> implement >>>>>>>> something (anything) that allows it. >>>>>>>> +1 on all points; the next step in the life of the project will be >>> the >>>>>>>> setup of an healthy ecosystem and these are concrete steps in that >>>>>>>> direction. >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> Right now we have a gigantic project with a gateway of ~13 active >>>>>>>> committers (23 total) who have day jobs to worry about along with >>> reviewing >>>>>>>> (and fighting about) commits (or just giving up on this >>> responsibility), >>>>>>>> attempting to improve the project and taking part in these (mostly >>> pointless >>>>>>>> discussions) and then keeping the rest of the community happy. >>> Increasing >>>>>>>> the number of committers just increases the potential for >>> disagreement and >>>>>>>> then stagnation so the only other option to reduce the code. >>>>>>>>> Give control of features and components to people who care about >>> them and >>>>>>>> then help users find them externally as they need them. Don't like >>> the >>>>>>>> direction a feature/component is taking? Fork it and compete. >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2011, at 9:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I have noticed some negative trends happening to us in the last >>> (1-2) >>>>>>>> years: >>>>>>>>>> * a dramatic decrease of design discussions and an increase in >>> commits >>>>>>>>>> * committers are often working for themselves and not for the >>> greater >>>>>>>> good of the project ("if a customer pays me to do something then it >>> will be >>>>>>>> also good for the project") >>>>>>>>>> * less peer reviews and mostly focused on formal aspects rather >>> then >>>>>>>> fundamental aspects of the contributions >>>>>>>>>> * a decrease in the minimum quality level needed to make a commit >>>>>>>> "acceptable" >>>>>>>>>> * a proliferation of "best practices" and "rules" in an attempt to >>>>>>>> improve the quality of the commits >>>>>>>>>> * a decay in the attitude and quality of discussions: attacks, >>> critics >>>>>>>> and fights instead of healthy discussions to learn from others and >>> improve >>>>>>>> design decisions >>>>>>>>>> Of course I am focusing on bad things, to the good ones (yes, there >>> are >>>>>>>> also good ones) it is easier to adjust: however when the final result >>> of our >>>>>>>> efforts is that a person like David doesn't feel comfortable in >>> contributing >>>>>>>> more then I feel bad. >>>>>>>>>> The primary goal of the PMC, and the community in general, should >>> be >>>>>>>> that of creating the perfect environment to facilitate contributions >>> from >>>>>>>> people like David, and limit/review/improve the contributions from >>> other >>>>>>>> less blessed contributors: it seems like all our efforts are >>> obtaining the >>>>>>>> exact opposite result. >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:46 AM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I'll respond here to Adrian's comments below, and to what Raj and >>>>>>>> others have written as well. >>>>>>>>>>> Backwards compatibility is a huge issue, but I suppose that is as >>> much >>>>>>>> a symptom as it is a disease in and of itself. The underlying issue >>> is >>>>>>>> bureaucracy. >>>>>>>>>>> If I wanted to spend all my time chatting with others and writing >>>>>>>> endlessly about when to do things and what to do, and trying to >>> recruit >>>>>>>> others to do it... then OFBiz would be the perfect place for that. I >>> did >>>>>>>> that for years, and I'm happy with what has been done with OFBiz, but >>> there >>>>>>>> came a point in time where the whole bureaucratic trend became >>> stronger than >>>>>>>> any single person's ability to push for new or different things. That >>> point >>>>>>>> in time was at least a yeah and a half ago, and perhaps long earlier >>> than >>>>>>>> that depending on how you look at it. >>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd rather spend my time on more productive efforts, >>> and do >>>>>>>> so in a way that avoids this same bureaucratic mess in the future >>> (like >>>>>>>> different management style and keeping framework, data model, themes, >>> and >>>>>>>> applications as separate projects). This way not only I, but many >>> people are >>>>>>>> free to work on what they want to and not have to argue about every >>> little >>>>>>>> thing they want to do, or deal with constant complaints about every >>> little >>>>>>>> thing they actually do. >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't separate and competing projects better than that everyone >>> arguing >>>>>>>> and having to agree on what to do? Well, I have good news! No matter >>> how you >>>>>>>> (the reader) answer that question, you have an option to fit your >>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 25, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Many of the things listed here have been discussed, and as far as >>> I >>>>>>>> can tell, there is no objection to making those changes - we just >>> need the >>>>>>>> manpower to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>> Item #7 has been discussed and there hasn't been any argument >>> against >>>>>>>> that change - except that it touches on the backwards-compatibility >>> issue. >>>>>>>> And I'm going to use this opportunity to address that issue. >>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the changes mentioned here wouldn't affect any of my >>> projects >>>>>>>> - because I don't attempt to patch or modify the framework - I only >>> build >>>>>>>> applications on it. Other changes mentioned here would make >>> application >>>>>>>> development easier. >>>>>>>>>>>> The other day Ryan Foster described the backwards-compatibility >>> talk >>>>>>>> as a mantra. I view it as more of a straw man. Five days ago I posed >>> this >>>>>>>> question to the user mailing list: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Would you, as an end user of OFBiz, knowing that the OFBiz >>> project >>>>>>>> could be improved greatly - but at the cost of some backward >>> incompatibility >>>>>>>> - accept the changes? If yes, how often would backwards-incompatible >>> changes >>>>>>>> be acceptable?" >>>>>>>>>>>> It is interesting to note that in a list of over 400 subscribers, >>> no >>>>>>>> one has replied. >>>>>>>>>>>> The most vocal proponents of backwards-compatibility (in the >>>>>>>> framework) are a few players who have modified the framework locally. >>> As a >>>>>>>> community, do we really want to allow those few members to stifle >>>>>>>> innovation? >>>>>>>>>>>> Some users claimed the updated Flat Grey visual theme wasn't >>>>>>>> "backwards compatible." What does that even mean? Some colors and >>>>>>>> background images were changed - how is that backwards incompatible? >>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, I have been an advocate for backwards-compatibility. >>> But >>>>>>>> that has been for things that break application functionality. >>>>>>>>>>>> At the least, there needs to be a compromise. At best, there >>> needs to >>>>>>>> be acceptance of the possibility of future versions that are not >>> backwards >>>>>>>> compatible with previous versions. That concept is not new or >>> revolutionary >>>>>>>> - it goes on in every software project, both open source and >>> commercial. >>>>>>>>>>>> David has some great ideas, but he feels compelled to start over >>> from >>>>>>>> scratch to implement them. From my perspective, that's a tragedy. One >>> of the >>>>>>>> project's founders feels the need to start another project as a last >>> resort >>>>>>>> to make the project he originally started better. Does that make >>> sense? >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to use Moqui. It's an unfinished framework >>> controlled by >>>>>>>> one person and it has no applications built around it. Bottom line - >>> it's >>>>>>>> not an option. What I want is Moqui's innovations in OFBiz. >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it's time we have a serious discussion about this. >>> Users >>>>>>>> have commented that there is no plan for OFBiz - what is planned for >>> its >>>>>>>> future? They're right. Maybe we should come up with some plans, or >>> some kind >>>>>>>> of path to the future. >>>>>>>>>>>> I propose we put all the cards on the table. Where do we go from >>> here? >>>>>>>> Continue on our present path and have competing projects that improve >>> on >>>>>>>> OFBiz technology? Try to keep innovation in the project at the >>> expense of >>>>>>>> some backwards incompatibility? Maintain backwards compatibility by >>> forking >>>>>>>> the project to something new? Or have milestone versions that are >>> clearly >>>>>>>> marketed as backwards incompatible with previous milestone versions? >>>>>>>>>>>> Lately, it seems many of the big players in the OFBiz developer >>>>>>>> community have been absent on the mailing list. I understand that >>> this is a >>>>>>>> volunteer community, but at the same time, we all have a say, and >>> that "say" >>>>>>>> depends on us saying *something.* >>>>>>>>>>>> So, please say something. >>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/25/2011 1:53 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 25, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/25/11 2:06 AM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 - you keep saying this..Please provide some examples of >>>>>>>> "cumbersome and inconsistent" within the framework. And why not try >>> and fix >>>>>>>> these? Instead of reinventing the wheel. What "funny quirky" things >>> have >>>>>>>> turned of prospective developers? Do you have an specific examples? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have mentioned these many times especially in the last >>> 2-3 >>>>>>>> years. Some of them I have tried to fix in OFBiz itself and ran into >>> rather >>>>>>>> large problems. These are not easy changes to make in a large and >>> mature >>>>>>>> project like OFBiz, and after trying a few times I decided that a new >>>>>>>> framework was the only way forward (another thing I've written before >>> and >>>>>>>> made very clear). >>>>>>>>>>>>> These are the things that led to many aspects of the design of >>> Moqui, >>>>>>>> and the best summary of them is the document I wrote about the >>> differences >>>>>>>> between the Moqui and OFBiz frameworks: >>>>>>>> >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/moqui/forums/forum/1086127/topic/3597296 >>>>>>>>>>>>> To sum up here are some of the major inconsistencies and >>> annoyances >>>>>>>> in the current OFBiz framework that bug me frequently while I'm >>> developing: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. XML actions are different in each widget and in the >>>>>>>> simple-methods; they share some underlying code but there are so many >>>>>>>> differences >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. scriptlets and expressions are a messy combination of >>> BeanShell, >>>>>>>> UEL, and Groovy and keeping track of which is a pain, plus the Groovy >>> syntax >>>>>>>> and capabilities are SO much better than the others so I find myself >>> almost >>>>>>>> always using ${groovy:...} instead of the default, and in annoying >>> places >>>>>>>> like the form.field.@use-when attribute since it is always BeanShell >>> I >>>>>>>> just use a set action to prepare a boolean and then check it in the >>> use-when >>>>>>>> (BeanShell is HORRIBLE compared to groovy, especially when squeezed >>> into XML >>>>>>>> attributes) >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. the controller.xml file gets HUGE for larger applications, >>> and if >>>>>>>> split it becomes harder to find requests and views; *Screen.xml files >>> also >>>>>>>> tend to get HUGE with large numbers of screens in them; both are not >>>>>>>> organized in the same way as the application, also generally making >>> things >>>>>>>> harder to find; views/screens and requests don't define incoming >>> parameters >>>>>>>> so when doing request-redirect you have to specify the parameters to >>> use in >>>>>>>> a larger number of places >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. another on the topic of why so many files: service groups and >>>>>>>> simple-methods are just XML, why not include them inline in the >>> service >>>>>>>> definition (especially for smaller services), and encourage fewer >>> services >>>>>>>> per file >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. loading of artifacts is not very lazy, meaning lots of unused >>>>>>>> screens, forms, services, entities and so on that are not used are >>> loaded >>>>>>>> anyway; also many artifacts are difficult to reload by cache clearing >>> and so >>>>>>>> that has limited support in OFBiz; this slows things down reloading >>> lots of >>>>>>>> stuff in development, and results in more resources used than needed >>> in >>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. the deployment model of OFBiz is limited and the use of >>> static >>>>>>>> fields for initialization makes it difficult to deploy in other ways; >>> there >>>>>>>> are few init/destroy methods and object instances that would make >>> more >>>>>>>> deployment models easier and more flexible; also because of this it >>> is >>>>>>>> difficult to get data from other parts of the framework (for example >>> the >>>>>>>> audit log stuff in the OFBiz Entity Engine uses ThreadLocal variables >>> to >>>>>>>> pass userLoginId and visitId down since there is no other good way of >>> doing >>>>>>>> it); in other words, the tools don't share a context >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. no API for apps; the framework is made up of an enormous >>> number of >>>>>>>> classes that follow a bunch of different "patterns" (in quotes >>> because the >>>>>>>> use of the term is generous) because of various people "cleaning" >>> things up >>>>>>>> over time (also in quotes because the use of the term is generous), >>> and >>>>>>>> there is no distinction between the API that apps are intended to use >>> and >>>>>>>> the internal implementation of that API; this has the nasty side >>> effect of >>>>>>>> making it difficult to find the object and method you want, AND it >>> makes >>>>>>>> backward compatibility problems REALLY nasty because it gets people >>>>>>>> believing that EVERY SINGLE object needs to ALWAYS be backward >>> compatible... >>>>>>>> and that results in more and more piles of trash code lying around >>> over >>>>>>>> time, and all of that code and differing patterns makes framework >>> changes >>>>>>>> error-prone and unnecessarily difficult (and this is true for some of >>> the >>>>>>>> app code in OFBiz too) >>>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to work... there's a short list anyway... >>>>>>>>>>>>> The trick is how to solve these without abandoning backward >>>>>>>> compatibility, and requiring a refactor of much of the framework and >>> then >>>>>>>> based on that the updating of massive numbers of application >>> artifacts... >>>>>>>> and that is just the stuff in OFBiz itself... not including >>> everything that >>>>>>>> everyone else has written outside the project that they may want to >>> update. >>>>>>>> And, ALL of that would have to be retested. Plus, it would take so >>> long to >>>>>>>> get all of this done in a branch with huge numbers of changes while >>> others >>>>>>>> are making incremental changes in the trunk making it nearly >>> impossible to >>>>>>>> merge the branch into the trunk, so it would basically be a fork >>> anyway... >>>>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>> >>>> Project Manager, POS? Even maybe My Portal? >>>> >>>> Jacquees >>> >>> >
