Yes, these are both fine.

-David


On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Cameron Smith wrote:

Good point. I just rechecked - it is definitely GPL. I would not in fact propose including it in OFBiz, because for many many purposes OFBiz "as is" is perfectly fine and internally consistent.

I believe there would be no problem putting "OFBiz + ZK Howto" documents on the OFBiz Wiki, however?

If, which is fairly likely, we did get to the point of having some generic integration/helper code to contribute back to the community, I believe we could create a separated GPL'd codebase in sourceforge for instance, just for this "plugin", and point at it from the Wiki, with clear warnings that people should understand the different licensing model. Just as OpenTAPS financials is built as a "drop in" to OFBiz proper.

cameron

----- Original Message ----
From: David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 December, 2006 11:32:15 PM
Subject: Re: Ofbiz featuring Google Ajax?


This sounds pretty cool. Just to make it clear though, if it is GPL
licensed we can't include it in OFBiz nor can we include code that
relies on it or uses it in OFBiz.

-David


On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Cameron Smith wrote:

Just to contribute to this discussion, we are moving in the
direction of using the ZK framework (potix.com).  It has the same
dual licensing framework as MySQL.

Note that this is a step beyond simply "using Ajax" inside a
basically normally page-by-page framework.  It creates a much more
"desktop" model of development.  The key reasons we are jumping to
this kind of model are:
 1. Avoids the mish-mash of technologies and syntax which most web
projects have (JSP + JSTL + Struts + DHTML + Prototype) for
example.  One of the thins I most like about OFBiz (backend) is
that to code entities and business logic, you can spend most of
your time thinking about the data model, logic flow and
understanding the problem domain.  Actually coding the service is
fairly straightforward, and doesnÂșt even require Java knowledge
(although Java is always there if you need it).   Unfortunately,
after trying out the OFBiz frontend framework, we found it still
rather a mish-mash, albeit better organized.  Widgets, screens,
forms, FTL, beanshell, scattered around various directories.
In ZK, you basically code in a very consistent XML language, and
beanshell.   Optionally, you can define complex components in Java,
there are many plugin points.   So we can reuse our developer's
existing Java knowledge.

2. Nicer to look at, and facilitates making more user-friendly UIs,
which is one area where OFBiz still has a long way to go.

3. Facilitates reuse of components across your application (if you
are careful about it).

4. MAY be more performant because there is less network traffic,
and less needless reprocessing of most of the page (menus, headers
etc), by both browser and server, every time you click a wee button.

In technical terms, yes it requires installation of some servlets,
listeners etc. in your webapp but this to me is reasonable.  They
are all standard J2EE components which I know how to configure and
secure.

There IS a case for centralizing some of these services across all
OFBiz JVM, if you use ZK in multiple webapps, but then you could
say that about the OFBiz control servlet as well.  There is always
some tradeoff between modularization and centralization.

In terms of compatibility, it DOES depend on a more recent version
of Beanshell but I do not believe this issue will be around too
long (see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-528)

The other very similar alternative to ZK, which we also
investigated, is:
http://www.openlaszlo.org/

A very similar architecture, and very well-documented.  The big
stumbling block was that it requires the browser to have Flash
plugin, of a certain version, etc., whereas ZK is purely DHTML-
based.  Laszlo have been saying that DHTML support is coming "soon"
but in fact they have been saying this for a while.  All of the
other frameworks (DOJO, prototype, rico, etc.) have the drawback
that they do one or two things, and have their very own syntax and
configuration peculiarities.  ZK may not be best of breed in any of
these areas, but it is no slacker, and has the advantage of a
consistent approach to everything.

Anyway, we are currently converting a 32bit client-server product
to use ZK frontend + OFBiz backend, I will keep yous all informed
of how it goes.

cameron

P.S. I am not in any way a representative of Potix Software, I am
merely summarizing the outcomes of my findings so far, with the
community

----- Original Message ----
From: Sayoke Shome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 December, 2006 6:17:53 AM
Subject: RE: Ofbiz featuring Google Ajax?


I haven't worked much on DOJO (found it little confusing), but if
Ofbiz
community is looking for a tested and free framework for Ajax then
Might
I suggest DWR framework. The only disadvantage is, it comes with
its own
servlet. This has to be incorporated in Web.xml for web-app. But it
would make Ajax implementation child's play.

But after working on Ajax in Ofbiz for couple of months I feel we can
make the most of it if we use naked Ajax code. It will then exploit
the
MVC architecture of Ofbiz to fullest and no third party servlet
will be
required.





Thanks and regards,



Sayoke Shome | eCommerce Framework Developer | ENSIA | BIPL, sector V,
salt lake | mobile 0.99031.80520 |

"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge
without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful."





-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruppert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ofBiz featuring Google ajax?



Walter, there's actually a lot of discussion on this topic going on

on the dev list as we speak.  There are competing "standards" out

there and we're all trying to come to some consensus about what

direction to take the project.



We currently have demos in JSON, Google Web Toolkit and Dojo (and I

know there are lots of other ones going on with other companies) - so

I'm confident that we'll get to a good place.



Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com



o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6594





On Dec 12, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Walter Vaughan wrote:



I just read in that Google Ajax has been released under the Apache

2.0 license. I know that Si and a few others are working on

integrating a few ajax features into the project, but it might be

cool to have a bulletpoint like "features the Google(r) Web Toolkit

(tm)"...



http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html



--

Walter





===================================================================== =
======================================================

Tech Mahindra, formerly Mahindra-British Telecom.

Disclaimer:

This message and the information contained herein is proprietary
and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement,
you may review at <a href="http://www.techmahindra.com/
Disclaimer.html">http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a>
externally and <a href="http://tim.techmahindra.com/
Disclaimer.html">http://tim.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a>
internally within Tech Mahindra.

===================================================================== =
======================================================



Send instant messages to your online friends http://
uk.messenger.yahoo.com





Send instant messages to your online friends http:// uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Reply via email to