[jira] [Closed] (OFBIZ-7952) CXF memory issue dump

[ismail CHAKOUR (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7952?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

ismail CHAKOUR closed OFBIZ-7952.
-
Resolution: Invalid

> CXF memory issue dump
> -
>
> Key: OFBIZ-7952
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7952
> Project: OFBiz
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: framework
>Reporter: ismail CHAKOUR
>




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Created] (OFBIZ-7952) CXF memory issue dump

[ismail CHAKOUR (JIRA)]

ismail CHAKOUR created OFBIZ-7952:
-

 Summary: CXF memory issue dump
 Key: OFBIZ-7952
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7952
 Project: OFBiz
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: framework
Reporter: ismail CHAKOUR






--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Re: Removing debug task

[Jacques Le Roux]

I have no problems reverting start and stop tasks since we will rename the ofbizDebug and ofbizBackground patterns to debug and background and the 
secure patterns will be removed.


I'll then happily run locally OFBiz using "g o", etc.

Both are removed at r1756269, with the soon useless debug task

Jacques


Le 13/08/2016 à 11:58, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

I agree Jacopo. Less is more.

This also has to do with the philosophy that simple != easy. These "lazy"
commands are nice but they have a price as they add to the complexity. Now
if you change something you need to change other things to keep the system
functional. You also confuse your users when you have many ways to achieve
the same result.

I also think we are introducing convenience too early. We just introduced
gradle recently and we did not even remove all the libs yet nor did we
introduce a plugin system. It's just way too early to start shoving more
and more.

Historically OFBiz suffered from being overly complex with a fat code base.
Why? it is exactly because of simple things like this one. Imagine this
small tangling of code happening thousands of times everywhere in the code
base, what do you get? you get the complexity we are suffering from right
now. That is why many times I get very afraid when touching code because I
just don't know what am I going to break next.

Taher Alkhateeb

On Saturday, 13 August 2016, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:


On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com > wrote:


...

Why? I prefer, it's more intuitive and I feel a continuity with "legacy",

to type start and stop rather than ofbiz and "ofbiz --shutdown" :p

Jacques


My preference is to design and implement a set of tasks that is as clean,
lean and consistent as possible rather than trying to blend the new tasks
with the "legacy flavor"; while the "legacy flavor" may initially help
old-time adopters already used to the previous style, on the other hand it
could increase the initial learning curve for new adopters.

Jacopo

Re: Removing debug task

[Taher Alkhateeb]

I agree Jacopo. Less is more.

This also has to do with the philosophy that simple != easy. These "lazy"
commands are nice but they have a price as they add to the complexity. Now
if you change something you need to change other things to keep the system
functional. You also confuse your users when you have many ways to achieve
the same result.

I also think we are introducing convenience too early. We just introduced
gradle recently and we did not even remove all the libs yet nor did we
introduce a plugin system. It's just way too early to start shoving more
and more.

Historically OFBiz suffered from being overly complex with a fat code base.
Why? it is exactly because of simple things like this one. Imagine this
small tangling of code happening thousands of times everywhere in the code
base, what do you get? you get the complexity we are suffering from right
now. That is why many times I get very afraid when touching code because I
just don't know what am I going to break next.

Taher Alkhateeb

On Saturday, 13 August 2016, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com > wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> Why? I prefer, it's more intuitive and I feel a continuity with "legacy",
> > to type start and stop rather than ofbiz and "ofbiz --shutdown" :p
> >
> > Jacques
>
>
> My preference is to design and implement a set of tasks that is as clean,
> lean and consistent as possible rather than trying to blend the new tasks
> with the "legacy flavor"; while the "legacy flavor" may initially help
> old-time adopters already used to the previous style, on the other hand it
> could increase the initial learning curve for new adopters.
>
> Jacopo
>

Re: Removing debug task

[Jacopo Cappellato]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> ...

Why? I prefer, it's more intuitive and I feel a continuity with "legacy",
> to type start and stop rather than ofbiz and "ofbiz --shutdown" :p
>
> Jacques


My preference is to design and implement a set of tasks that is as clean,
lean and consistent as possible rather than trying to blend the new tasks
with the "legacy flavor"; while the "legacy flavor" may initially help
old-time adopters already used to the previous style, on the other hand it
could increase the initial learning curve for new adopters.

Jacopo