Scott,
I agree that the community changes ofbiz by committing. And as a
non-committer and just and end user, all I have is a voice.
I just found the arguments against the proposal to be unfounded and not
in the best interests of the ofbiz project. For example, the comment
about disk space and memory being cheap can't be serious - there aren't
many examples of monolithic software anymore.
I think rather than hearing just objections, I would have preferred to
have heard a response along the lines of:
"the idea sounds interesting and warrants more investigation - please
feel free to put a design or prototype together".
Cheers,
Chris
Scott Gray wrote:
Chris,
Very few things are ever not an option, but just because someone turns
up on the mailing list out of nowhere and proposes something vague
doesn't mean that it is suddenly a valid idea that everyone should
take seriously. OFBiz like every other apache project is a
meritocracy, the people in "control" are the people who actually get
things done for the project.
Regards
Scott
On 13/11/2009, at 11:53 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't
required.
Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People
in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business
model.
No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before
attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
And I am not in control of OFBiz...
Jacopo
Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
