This is pretty much how OFBiz has been organized for a long time. These three layers are in the following directories:
* framework * applications (base applications) * specialpurpose (special purpose application) -David On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:07 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: > ofbiz, now has three basic layers, as I see it. > > first is the framework, which should stand alone from the other layers. > > Next is your basic Business layer needed for all businesses, to manage > relationships, cash flow, products. This level can have interdependence and > dependence on the framework. > > the top layer is the type of business one has, manufacturing, Ecommerce, > Travel. these don't really depended on each other, unless you have a > multidivisional organization and are driven by different Business plans as to > how to implement. > > True the Data model of manufacturing has some that lend itself to products, > but the manufacturing industry as such is different than selling products, > say retail and takes into different consideration. > > I can see the benefit of having the auto integration of the toplevel addons > by your means, as well as added setup setup in the setup module. > These would be a typical business plan process as described in the SBA.Gov > site. > > > > > Bruno Busco sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:51 PM: >> Having these extensions managed as add-on modules in a separate repository >> will be beneficial to the OFBiz trunk. >> >> I mean that this way of managing extensions will probabily require >> improvements in the trunk itself to better manage extensions. (i.e. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373) >> >> Having the extensions in the trunk could generate new dependency problems >> (like we have now with many of OFBiz components) and will not help setting >> in place a powerfull, community-wide method of managing extensions. >> >> My two cents, >> >> -Bruno >> >> >> 2010/7/15 BJ Freeman<[email protected]> >> >>> Inlne: >>> >>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:39 AM: >>> >>> >>>> This looks like more of a separate repository than a branch of OFBiz. >>>> >>> yes and no. >>> since it would usually not be merged back to ofbiz, yes, being able to sync >>> trunk to branch that all in the branch work with no. >>> >>> >>> >>>> First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch of a source >>>> repository is >>>> >>> >>> effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately >>> that was the intention. >>> >>> >>> and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk. >>> If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk, it is a fork. >>> So version 4.0 9.04, 10.4 will be merged back to the trunk? >>> or are they now Forks? >>> >>> >>>> What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't sound like it would >>>> be a copy of OFBiz that is changed separately, >>>> >>> matter of perspective >>> >>> but rather a repository for add-on modules. >>> of course they are addons. >>> for instance the manufacturing, travel and Eccommerce would be defined as >>> addon, Just as the finacial Services, telecommunication, Proffiessional >>> services, Insurance and HealthCare are in the vol II of data model book. >>> so why limit it to just those vertical markets. there are many. >>> By having the trunk brought into the Contributors "section" they would >>> could access it and pull down everything at once to work with or use. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of the ASF, especially >>>> >>> the reason to keep it was the ability to move the truck into it. >>> >>> >>> if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's all there is >>> at the ASF. >>> clarification it was meant to communicate the popular vote is meant as an >>> indicatore, but the PMC would be the deciding vote. >>> >>> >>>> For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge or google code >>>> project and share commit access with others who are interested? There is >>>> nothing that says OFBiz add-on modules have to be part of the project, or >>>> that people can't create separate projects to do such things. If various >>>> people want to work together to do so, from the community spirit >>>> perspective... all the better! >>>> >>> it also gives ofbiz a greater appeal to the users that may use ofbiz in a >>> vertical market. >>> and it does not stop any current developer from learning and offering >>> these. >>> >>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hans, >>>>>> >>>>>> How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who >>>>>> would be able to commit to it? >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Shouldn't we do a proof of concept? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will volunteer to create and update a new branch for BJ to start and >>>>>>> everyone who would like to contribute. When the people on this branch >>>>>>> say they are ready we can judge what is there and/or provide >>>>>>> suggestions >>>>>>> for enhancement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After general consensus the branch will be merged into the trunk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any comments? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 18:21 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 7/9/2010 11:07 PM: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am writing a proposal for Contributors branch. >>>>>>>>> some of the points are: >>>>>>>>> 1)components not continued to be supported in the specialpurpose get >>>>>>>>> move to the contributors branch till interest is renewed. >>>>>>>>> this would simplify maintaining the trunk but allow people to pull it >>>>>>>>> down if they want to work on it. >>>>>>>>> 2)there is no guarantee of the ofbiz community support of the >>>>>>>>> contributions. >>>>>>>>> 3)people can test the contribution and may vote to include it in the >>>>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>>>> 4)it gives one place to make sure all contributions are integrated >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the latest trunk and each other without effecting the trunk. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it puzzles me that it is ok open a branch to collorate, but when >>>>>>>>> opportunity to have a lot of contributions avalible that would spread >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz acceptance you bulk. under you logic that it can be done >>>>>>>>> elsewhere >>>>>>>>> why not do the same for Hippo. >>>>>>>>> I would be interested in your reasons why besides it can be >>>>>>>>> elsewhere. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 10:27 PM: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What need would contributor branches meet that can't already be met >>>>>>>>>> using the likes of sourceforge, google code or github? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding your other statements, at some point Hans you are going to >>>>>>>>>> need to ask yourself why it is mostly only your commits that cause >>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> much negative discussion. Everyone else seems to work together just >>>>>>>>>> fine for the most part. I'm not saying it's all your fault but you >>>>>>>>>> can't just blame everyone else for these problems and ignore your >>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> contribution to them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 2:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have the same opinion as you BJ, even as a committer it is too >>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>> problem contributing because of the number of technical people in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> PMC which often only judge on technical qualities and making the >>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>> technically as difficult as possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The current discussion (not really sure if it is one) between >>>>>>>>>>> Adrian and >>>>>>>>>>> me is a good example. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be a good idea to have contributor branches. Other >>>>>>>>>>> PMC >>>>>>>>>>> members who would support this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To be honest i think that you should try to become a committer, i >>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>> why you did not accept in the past, but please reconsider. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:33 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> my goal has always been to have this ofbiz do this. it has never >>>>>>>>>>>> been my >>>>>>>>>>>> intent to have a seperate ofbiz. Nor am I promoting mine. >>>>>>>>>>>> my problem up to now has been acceptance and resources. >>>>>>>>>>>> I see the winds changing on acceptance and I have gotten the >>>>>>>>>>>> resources. >>>>>>>>>>>> if you note I suggest years ago to have contributor branches. >>>>>>>>>>>> Had that happened I would have contributed to it instead of create >>>>>>>>>>>> mine. >>>>>>>>>>>> I see the equivalent of contributor branch happening more like the >>>>>>>>>>>> Current Hippo branch. >>>>>>>>>>>> so if someone wants to open a branch I can just submit to, it >>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>> faster, however i am happy to provide Jiras. >>>>>>>>>>>> so if the Jiras I put patches in are accepted then the ofbiz will >>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the one I have. >>>>>>>>>>>> Note my first major move to accomplish this >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3852 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 5:18 PM: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 1:06 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a product is more of a marketing item >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part is a description of a function >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they vary for engineering and manufacturing. Engineering does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assign a commercial product to the part where manufacture may >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many actual purchase parts that will never be sold individually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see in the model book the one I implemented is the alternative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more extensive model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, where can I download a copy of this BJBiz? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>>>> try and keep in mind that we are discussing OFBiz in this mailing >>>>>>>>>>>>> list, not your derivative of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:53 PM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In OFBiz a Part is a Product, so what is your point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/07/2010, at 12:16 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman<http://bjfreeman.elance.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW your quoting is terrible, I never made the statement below >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:02 PM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
