I'm not sure whether I'm the 1st suggested standalone framework release. But I have given it up.
OFBiz was/is built for consultants' satisfaction, it's an ideal agile system for consultants to prove ecommerce is possible and affordable for everyone. Threads in this topic shows a typical discussion between a consultant and a developer. They have different concepts on framework. As a developer, I think framework should only have tomcat, entity engine and service engine. Auth? Tomcat has valve. Perhaps we can change framework to another word, for example, server. Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. 在 2010-09-18六的 10:56 -0600，David E Jones写道： > James, > > I think that was BJ's point: the OFBiz Entity Engine is NOT an ORM tool, ie > there is no attempt to map between an object model and the relational model > in the database. We simply use the relational model itself. This reduces > redundancy (you don't have to create an object model), and it avoid the often > big/annoying problem of "impedance mismatch" between the two very different > ways of modeling and managing data. > > I never did understand why the lords of Java always felt the need to map > EVERYTHING to an object model instead of creating objects that make it easier > to work with the natural model of each thing (ie relational databases, > services, etc, etc). I guess once you get used to a certain way of doing > things it's hard to imagine doing it in any way different. > > -David > > > On Sep 18, 2010, at 2:38 AM, james_sg wrote: > > > > > Hi BJ, > > > > I treat OFBiz entity engine as an ORM that uses Map for the Object part. > > > > The gui modeler is a desktop application (not sure if it is swt based), that > > helps with the editing of the database definition files, and database schema > > migration. The gui modeler is not used in the web application, nor does it > > use JNLP. > > > > Cayenne also doesn't generate the html forms from the database. > > > > Anyway, I can't think of a strong business case for making entity engine > > swappable. > > I thought it is worth mentioning Cayenne since it is similar to OFBiz entity > > engine. > > > > - james > > > > > > BJ Freeman wrote: > >> > >> One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM. > >> if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a > >> communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on > >> the fly into html, from the server. > >> > >> BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps > >> I converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL. > >> > >> ========================= > >> BJ Freeman > >> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation > >> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > >> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > >> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > >> > >> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > >> > >> james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM: > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine. > >>> > >>> A few points about Cayenne: > >>> 1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value. > >>> 2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity. > >>> 3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database. > >>> 4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster. > >>> 5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In > >>> Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated > >>> Generic > >>> Objects are implicitly saved. > >>> 6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated > >>> and grouped under domains and combined at runtime. > >>> 7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz > >>> does that automatically. > >>> > >>> If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity > >>> engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz. > >>> > >>> Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> James > >>> > >>> > >>> Scott Gray-2 wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Chris, > >>>> > >>>> Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with > >>>> hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses > >>>> POJOs to represent data? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>> HotWax Media > >>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>>> > >>>> On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules. > >>>>> > >>>>> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact > >>>>> with the outside world. A clearly defined api will facilitate > >>>>> swapping parts. For example, the entity engine could be replaced with > >>>>> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented. > >>>>> > >>>>> (also there would be a module for Birt) > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman<[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real > >>>>>> world, > >>>>>> like party, but just the tools. > >>>>>> so base layer is Entity and service engine. > >>>>>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets. > >>>>>> next layer is Webtools > >>>>>> next layer is security and common > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for > >>>>>> their > >>>>>> application. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent > >>>>>>> give you framework independence. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of > >>>>>>> ofbiz. For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in > >>>>>>> its > >>>>>>> own project. The entity engine from what I remember is currently > >>>>>>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration > >>>>>>> files. Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine > >>>>>>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component > >>>>>>> configurations. That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz > >>>>>>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a > >>>>>>> configuration service). Isolating parts of the system like the > >>>>>>> entity > >>>>>>> engine has a lot of benefits. For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned > >>>>>>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes. > >>>>>>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply > >>>>>>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of > >>>>>>> effort. That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Chris, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things > >>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>> get > >>>>>>>> sorted out when the common agreement is there. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite > >>>>>>>> framework. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -james > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2544837.html > > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
