Thanks Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> Jonathon, > > What are you finding so confusing about minilang that > is not covered here http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/GAM ? > This document has been improved upon recently, but the > bottom half has been accessible from the ofbiz.org > site for two years that I can attest. Jonathon, this is a work in progress, please see : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-571 BTW the old doc Chris mentionned is always here : http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/minilang.html. Coming from > someone who had ZERO java experience starting with > OFBiz (me) I find the elements are rather self > explanatory. It's also not as if there aren't plenty > of examples using each one. I have no idea how well > minilang would hold up to creating various kinds of > other programs, but for writing business logic, it's > pretty straight forward. If you're not finding that > to be the case, please ask questions there are plenty > of people here more than willing to help clarify. > Also, documentation doesn't write itself. If you find > something that didn't work as expected or a task was > difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish > it, do a short write about how you got from point A to > point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or > write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can > find an appropriate place for it. > > There's a funny point in learning OFBiz. You start > out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just > too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the > lack of documentation available (even given the sites > linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of > thousands of mailing list posts available and the > number of video tutorials available). But you start > playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment. > You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when > you look back and think "how can I make the learning > curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything > was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you > can add to those websites that could make it any > clearer. I digress, just ask questions. If you're > unable to find your answer on a first pass through > nabble and on the ofbiz.apache.org ask the question to > the mailing list and someone may be able to find the > right document for you a bit faster or clarify a point > in a document that may be a bit unclear. That's so true ! Jacques > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this. > > > > The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive > > either. Try putting your best Java developers into > > picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form > > widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I > > said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific > > technologies. > > > > BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, > > plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like > > Freemarker for front-end development convenience, > > and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to > > a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are > > generally better documented since their > > developers focus develoment time solely on those > > techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) > > developers don't delve into entity engines (backend > > tools). > > > > As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to > > hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or > > screen/form widget programmers. > > > > So, beware of the implications. Say I code > > customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form > > widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future > > tech support could be an really hairy issue > > for you. > > > > BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), > > Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be > > complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll > > then probably find that programming in Minilang > > is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, > > or I get paid by someone to completely > > reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and > > screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- > > say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain > > of Java codes, is all). > > > > For now, Java is perhaps your best bet. > > > > To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to > > ask this. Is there any way at all to insert > > debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form > > widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java > > codes for now. > > > > Jonathon > > > > Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > > > Ian, > > > > > > Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can > > be hard to understand. > > > But I do believe that both are loving, very > > loving. Amen. > > > > > > If there's any way we can all help each other > > (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let > > > me know. > > > > > > Jonathon > > > > > > Ian McNulty wrote: > > >> Hi Jonathon and Paul, > > >> > > >> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying > > to get a working > > >> model up and running that I could demo to small > > business clients in > > >> the UK. > > >> > > >> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the > > ground up, streets ahead > > >> of the competition and adaptable to almost any > > situation from running > > >> a one-man consultancy to a multinational > > enterprise. > > >> > > >> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've > > ever seen. I can't > > >> believe everybody won't want one. > > >> > > >> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely > > focussed on moving > > >> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. > > Which is how it should be. > > >> > > >> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small > > bugs. The mass of > > >> available documentation is actually almost as > > awesome as the framework > > >> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at > > engineers who need to > > >> understand how it works ... not how to work it. > > Enough workshop > > >> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no > > simple driver handbooks > > >> you can put in the glove compartment. > > >> > > >> This is a very fundamental difference. An > > entirely opposite point of > > >> view. > > >> > > >> Try talking to the average driver about the > > thermodynamics of > > >> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They > > neither need nor want > > >> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay > > the garage to take > > >> care of all that for them so they can free > > themselves up to deal with > > >> other things - like where to drive to. > > >> > > >> It's the little, superficial things that are most > > important. How does > > >> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and > > indicator switch? > > >> How often does it break down? > > >> > > >> This is true for all levels of users. More so in > > fact for the > > >> President of a large Corporation to whom image > > arriving at the golf > > >> club is everything, than to the small businessman > > in the street who > > >> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty > > occasionally. > > >> > > >> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling > > point and an essential > > >> place to start. In those circumstance, a door > > latch which needs a > > >> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook > > and the need for team > > >> of mechanics to tune it before every race is > > absolutely par for the > > >> course. And a racing driver who complains about > > such things will - > > >> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door. > > >> > > >> But for the average driver in the street it's > > exactly the opposite. > > >> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one > > breakdown on the first > > >> test drive and they've had their one bite of the > > cherry and ain't > > >> never coming back for more. > > >> > > >> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see > > solved. > > >> > > >> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out > > that this list is > > >> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than > > drivers in business > > >> suits on their way to the office. > > >> > > >> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than > > user-engineers would help > > >> focus the view from the other end of the > > telescope and prevent > > >> discussion of such superficial issues from > > clogging the inboxes of the > > >> rocket scientists who really need to be > > concentrating on getting us to > > >> Mars. > > >> > > >> I personally would like to contribute towards the > > development of some > > >> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a > > working model going for > > >> myself then it's hard to know where to start. > > >> > > >> Ian > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > > >>> Hi Paul, > > >>> > > >>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small > > business as well. > > >>> > > >>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this > > case involves > > >>> defaulting many values and code execution paths > > for a more condensed > > >>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some > > unnecessary steps in the > > >>> workflow and also auto-populate default values > > for some fields (or > > >>> leave them blank and unused). > > >>> > > >>> I propose that we work together on this? I have > > yet to hit the > > >>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured > > out the ecommerce > > > === message truncated ===
