Dev - this week's development blog is done!

[Si Chen-2]

http://ofbiz-new.blogspot.com/2006/05/ofbiz-development-svn-r7680.html

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Vinay Agarwal]

>From the blog, I understand that the latest code is running Geronimo by
default. Since I didn't even notice a hiccup in my own application, I am
very impressed. Great work! Before I get too excited, how do I know that I
am indeed running Geronimo?

Regards,
Vinay Agarwal

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Si Chen
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:56 AM
To: OFBiz Development; OFBiz Users / Usage Discussion
Subject: [OFBiz] Dev - this week's development blog is done!

http://ofbiz-new.blogspot.com/2006/05/ofbiz-development-svn-r7680.html

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[David E. Jones]

Just look at the transaction-factory element near the top of the entityengine.xml file.

-David


Vinay Agarwal wrote:

>>From the blog, I understand that the latest code is running Geronimo by
> default. Since I didn't even notice a hiccup in my own application, I am
> very impressed. Great work! Before I get too excited, how do I know that I
> am indeed running Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> Vinay Agarwal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Si Chen
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: OFBiz Development; OFBiz Users / Usage Discussion
> Subject: [OFBiz] Dev - this week's development blog is done!
>
> http://ofbiz-new.blogspot.com/2006/05/ofbiz-development-svn-r7680.html
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Vinay Agarwal]

Yep, it's Geronimo. It seems faster to startup although I have no objective
data. :)
Vinay

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of David E. Jones
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:46 PM
To: OFBiz Project Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Dev - this week's development blog is done!


Just look at the transaction-factory element near the top of the
entityengine.xml file.

-David


Vinay Agarwal wrote:

>>From the blog, I understand that the latest code is running Geronimo
>>by
> default. Since I didn't even notice a hiccup in my own application, I
> am very impressed. Great work! Before I get too excited, how do I know
> that I am indeed running Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> Vinay Agarwal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Si Chen
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: OFBiz Development; OFBiz Users / Usage Discussion
> Subject: [OFBiz] Dev - this week's development blog is done!
>
> http://ofbiz-new.blogspot.com/2006/05/ofbiz-development-svn-r7680.html
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Yes,

now we are running with the Geronimo Transaction Manager in place of
JOTM... and thanks to our two best surgeons, David Jones and Andy
Zenesky, the operation has been painless :-)

Jacopo

Vinay Agarwal wrote:
> Yep, it's Geronimo. It seems faster to startup although I have no objective
> data. :)
> Vinay
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Now that JOTM has been replaced with Geronimo TM I think that all the
dependencies to LGPLed jars has been resolved (the jars are now optional
components under the specialized folder). Is this true?
If so, should we move the code to the ASF SVN? When? During this
weekend, the next one, or later on?

Should we discuss about the new SVN layout? I.e. what to do with the
website and specialized folders etc...

Jacopo
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[David E. Jones]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Now that JOTM has been replaced with Geronimo TM I think that all the
> dependencies to LGPLed jars has been resolved (the jars are now optional
> components under the specialized folder). Is this true?

Yes, I think this is true at this point and we can now put something in the ASF SVN server without LGPL jars that will build and run straight from SVN (which has been the goal of course).

> If so, should we move the code to the ASF SVN? When? During this
> weekend, the next one, or later on?

I think this depends on what needs to be done and who can do it, and I'm not totally clear on this yet. It look like (from INFRA-741) that the repository already exists and we should all have commit privileges.

Of course, there are some issues still with who can commit where, and I'm not sure if it's possible to configure that given the way the ASF server is setup, and if so then who could do it (would you have permissions for this David Welton?).

Also, it would be better to wait until we have done the Jira move as well (which should be soon, I want to make sure at least Si also has his account setup there; both Jacopo and I have dev access setup).

> Should we discuss about the new SVN layout? I.e. what to do with the
> website and specialized folders etc...

I don't think we should change the structure at all. I propose that everything except the specialized directory in the current SVN should be put in the ASF SVN server and then removed from the current SVN server (though of course they will still be available if revisions previous to the removal are checked out).

-David

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacopo Cappellato]

I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
about this subject?) everything will be easier.
About the structure, what about the following one:

trunk/ofbiz
trunk/website

?

It has been recently suggested by Andy in the thread "specialized and
website folders in SVN tree" in this list.

About the ASF Jira server: it would be really nice to setup things to
get a mailing list for jira issues (Yoav, David W. do you think it is
possible to set up it?)

Have a nice weekend,

Jacopo



David E. Jones wrote:

>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Now that JOTM has been replaced with Geronimo TM I think that all the
>> dependencies to LGPLed jars has been resolved (the jars are now optional
>> components under the specialized folder). Is this true?
>
> Yes, I think this is true at this point and we can now put something in the ASF SVN server without LGPL jars that will build and run straight from SVN (which has been the goal of course).
>
>> If so, should we move the code to the ASF SVN? When? During this
>> weekend, the next one, or later on?
>
> I think this depends on what needs to be done and who can do it, and I'm not totally clear on this yet. It look like (from INFRA-741) that the repository already exists and we should all have commit privileges.
>
> Of course, there are some issues still with who can commit where, and I'm not sure if it's possible to configure that given the way the ASF server is setup, and if so then who could do it (would you have permissions for this David Welton?).
>
> Also, it would be better to wait until we have done the Jira move as well (which should be soon, I want to make sure at least Si also has his account setup there; both Jacopo and I have dev access setup).
>
>> Should we discuss about the new SVN layout? I.e. what to do with the
>> website and specialized folders etc...
>
> I don't think we should change the structure at all. I propose that everything except the specialized directory in the current SVN should be put in the ASF SVN server and then removed from the current SVN server (though of course they will still be available if revisions previous to the removal are checked out).
>
> -David
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[hansbak-2]

On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
> about this subject?) everything will be easier.
> About the structure, what about the following one:
>
> trunk/ofbiz
> trunk/website
>

I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where more
customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first sites
will go in production the next few months.

Is this possible?

Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!

> ?
>
> It has been recently suggested by Andy in the thread "specialized and
> website folders in SVN tree" in this list.
>
> About the ASF Jira server: it would be really nice to setup things to
> get a mailing list for jira issues (Yoav, David W. do you think it is
> possible to set up it?)
>
> Have a nice weekend,
>
> Jacopo
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> > Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >> Now that JOTM has been replaced with Geronimo TM I think that all the
> >> dependencies to LGPLed jars has been resolved (the jars are now optional
> >> components under the specialized folder). Is this true?
> >
> > Yes, I think this is true at this point and we can now put something in
> > the ASF SVN server without LGPL jars that will build and run straight
> > from SVN (which has been the goal of course).
> >
> >> If so, should we move the code to the ASF SVN? When? During this
> >> weekend, the next one, or later on?
> >
> > I think this depends on what needs to be done and who can do it, and I'm
> > not totally clear on this yet. It look like (from INFRA-741) that the
> > repository already exists and we should all have commit privileges.
> >
> > Of course, there are some issues still with who can commit where, and I'm
> > not sure if it's possible to configure that given the way the ASF server
> > is setup, and if so then who could do it (would you have permissions for
> > this David Welton?).
> >
> > Also, it would be better to wait until we have done the Jira move as well
> > (which should be soon, I want to make sure at least Si also has his
> > account setup there; both Jacopo and I have dev access setup).
> >
> >> Should we discuss about the new SVN layout? I.e. what to do with the
> >> website and specialized folders etc...
> >
> > I don't think we should change the structure at all. I propose that
> > everything except the specialized directory in the current SVN should be
> > put in the ASF SVN server and then removed from the current SVN server
> > (though of course they will still be available if revisions previous to
> > the removal are checked out).
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[David E. Jones]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
> about this subject?) everything will be easier.

As I understand it because there is a single big SVN repository having this sort of permission is probably not possible for me because I am not an ASF member. In other words, in the ASF world I am nothing and there is not sufficient trust for me to have this sort of permission.

Everyone needs to understand that this is an inherent part of this move to put OFBiz under the ASF umbrella. The roles of certain people, especially Andy and me, will change quite a bit and we will no longer be able to (or have to...) do things that we have done in the past in the administration of OFBiz.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it may result in more chaos in areas that we have pushed into stability as much as we could, especially the framework. Hopefully everyone involved will push toward the goals for the tools in a disciplined way that does not sacrifice tomorrow for today, but of course that is just my perception and with a larger group working on the direction OFBiz hopefully the project will move beyond that... With the move to the ASF OFBiz becomes a much more community and group driven project and so while I'll continue to voice my opinion, I'll no longer be in a position to enforce it. Of course, for many people this might be a welcome change. ;)

-David

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacopo Cappellato]

David,

maybe I'm wrong but in an ASF project many of the project's
administration tasks (commit privileges on part of the project's SVN
trunk etc...) are managed by the project's PMC Chair. The PMC Chair is
not necessarily an ASF member; since many of the admin tasks are now
carried on by you, I really think it will be a natural thing that you
will be the Chair in the 'new' Incubator Apache OFbiz project.

Yoav, David W.... am I wrong?

Jacopo

David E. Jones wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
>> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
>> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
>> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
>> about this subject?) everything will be easier.
>
> As I understand it because there is a single big SVN repository having this sort of permission is probably not possible for me because I am not an ASF member. In other words, in the ASF world I am nothing and there is not sufficient trust for me to have this sort of permission.
>
> Everyone needs to understand that this is an inherent part of this move to put OFBiz under the ASF umbrella. The roles of certain people, especially Andy and me, will change quite a bit and we will no longer be able to (or have to...) do things that we have done in the past in the administration of OFBiz.
>
> This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it may result in more chaos in areas that we have pushed into stability as much as we could, especially the framework. Hopefully everyone involved will push toward the goals for the tools in a disciplined way that does not sacrifice tomorrow for today, but of course that is just my perception and with a larger group working on the direction OFBiz hopefully the project will move beyond that... With the move to the ASF OFBiz becomes a much more community and group driven project and so while I'll continue to voice my opinion, I'll no longer be in a position to enforce it. Of course, for many people this might be a welcome change. ;)
>
> -David
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Hans Bakker]

On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
> about this subject?) everything will be easier.
> About the structure, what about the following one:
>
> trunk/ofbiz
> trunk/website
>

I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where more
customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first sites
will go in production the next few months.

Is this possible?

Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!

> ?
>
> It has been recently suggested by Andy in the thread "specialized and
> website folders in SVN tree" in this list.
>
> About the ASF Jira server: it would be really nice to setup things to
> get a mailing list for jira issues (Yoav, David W. do you think it is
> possible to set up it?)
>
> Have a nice weekend,
>
> Jacopo
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> > Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >> Now that JOTM has been replaced with Geronimo TM I think that all the
> >> dependencies to LGPLed jars has been resolved (the jars are now optional
> >> components under the specialized folder). Is this true?
> >
> > Yes, I think this is true at this point and we can now put something in
> > the ASF SVN server without LGPL jars that will build and run straight
> > from SVN (which has been the goal of course).
> >
> >> If so, should we move the code to the ASF SVN? When? During this
> >> weekend, the next one, or later on?
> >
> > I think this depends on what needs to be done and who can do it, and I'm
> > not totally clear on this yet. It look like (from INFRA-741) that the
> > repository already exists and we should all have commit privileges.
> >
> > Of course, there are some issues still with who can commit where, and I'm
> > not sure if it's possible to configure that given the way the ASF server
> > is setup, and if so then who could do it (would you have permissions for
> > this David Welton?).
> >
> > Also, it would be better to wait until we have done the Jira move as well
> > (which should be soon, I want to make sure at least Si also has his
> > account setup there; both Jacopo and I have dev access setup).
> >
> >> Should we discuss about the new SVN layout? I.e. what to do with the
> >> website and specialized folders etc...
> >
> > I don't think we should change the structure at all. I propose that
> > everything except the specialized directory in the current SVN should be
> > put in the ASF SVN server and then removed from the current SVN server
> > (though of course they will still be available if revisions previous to
> > the removal are checked out).
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

--
Regards,
Hans Bakker
ANT Websystems Co.,Ltd (http://www.antwebsystems.com)

If you want to verify that this message really originates from
from the above person, download the public key from:
http://www.antwebsystems.com/hbakkerAntwebsystems.asc
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacques Le Roux]

+1 :o)

Jacques

> Yes,
>
> now we are running with the Geronimo Transaction Manager in place of
> JOTM... and thanks to our two best surgeons, David Jones and Andy
> Zenesky, the operation has been painless :-)
>
> Jacopo
>
> Vinay Agarwal wrote:
> > Yep, it's Geronimo. It seems faster to startup although I have no objective
> > data. :)
> > Vinay
> >
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hans,

that's really interesting; I hope to have time to have a look at the
opentravelsystem very soon.
Are there any plans to integrate some of the features you have
implemented there back to the main OFBiz trunk?

Jacopo

Hans Bakker wrote:

> On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
>> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
>> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
>> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
>> about this subject?) everything will be easier.
>> About the structure, what about the following one:
>>
>> trunk/ofbiz
>> trunk/website
>>
> I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
> opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where more
> customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first sites
> will go in production the next few months.
>
> Is this possible?
>
> Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!
>
>> ?
>>
>> It has been recently suggested by Andy in the thread "specialized and
>> website folders in SVN tree" in this list.
>>
>> About the ASF Jira server: it would be really nice to setup things to
>> get a mailing list for jira issues (Yoav, David W. do you think it is
>> possible to set up it?)
>>
>> Have a nice weekend,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> Now that JOTM has been replaced with Geronimo TM I think that all the
>>>> dependencies to LGPLed jars has been resolved (the jars are now optional
>>>> components under the specialized folder). Is this true?
>>> Yes, I think this is true at this point and we can now put something in
>>> the ASF SVN server without LGPL jars that will build and run straight
>>> from SVN (which has been the goal of course).
>>>
>>>> If so, should we move the code to the ASF SVN? When? During this
>>>> weekend, the next one, or later on?
>>> I think this depends on what needs to be done and who can do it, and I'm
>>> not totally clear on this yet. It look like (from INFRA-741) that the
>>> repository already exists and we should all have commit privileges.
>>>
>>> Of course, there are some issues still with who can commit where, and I'm
>>> not sure if it's possible to configure that given the way the ASF server
>>> is setup, and if so then who could do it (would you have permissions for
>>> this David Welton?).
>>>
>>> Also, it would be better to wait until we have done the Jira move as well
>>> (which should be soon, I want to make sure at least Si also has his
>>> account setup there; both Jacopo and I have dev access setup).
>>>
>>>> Should we discuss about the new SVN layout? I.e. what to do with the
>>>> website and specialized folders etc...
>>> I don't think we should change the structure at all. I propose that
>>> everything except the specialized directory in the current SVN should be
>>> put in the ASF SVN server and then removed from the current SVN server
>>> (though of course they will still be available if revisions previous to
>>> the removal are checked out).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Hans Bakker]

Hi Jacopo,

Facilities of general interest which i implement in the opentravel system I
implement first in a more general way in the main ofbiz system, since i have
more commit priviledges. That is why I recently restructured the content and
resource screens in the content component and added the HTML editor to the
framework.
Many changes in the accounting component are also the result of using it in
the opentravelsystem.
--
Regards,
Hans Bakker
ANT Websystems Co.,Ltd (http://www.antwebsystems.com)

If you want to verify that this message really originates from
from the above person, download the public key from:
http://www.antwebsystems.com/hbakkerAntwebsystems.asc
On Saturday 27 May 2006 15:04, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hans Bakker wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
> >> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
> >> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
> >> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
> >> about this subject?) everything will be easier.
> >> About the structure, what about the following one:
> >>
> >> trunk/ofbiz
> >> trunk/website
> >
> > I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
> > opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where
> > more customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first
> > sites will go in production the next few months.
> >
> > Is this possible?
> >
> > Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!
> >
> >> ?
> >>
> >> It has been recently suggested by Andy in the thread "specialized and
> >> website folders in SVN tree" in this list.
> >>
> >> About the ASF Jira server: it would be really nice to setup things to

--
Regards,
Hans Bakker
ANT Websystems Co.,Ltd (http://www.antwebsystems.com)

If you want to verify that this message really originates from
from the above person, download the public key from:
http://www.antwebsystems.com/hbakkerAntwebsystems.asc

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Christian Geisert]

Jacopo Cappellato schrieb:

> David,
>
> maybe I'm wrong but in an ASF project many of the project's
> administration tasks (commit privileges on part of the project's SVN
> trunk etc...) are managed by the project's PMC Chair. The PMC Chair is
> not necessarily an ASF member; since many of the admin tasks are now
> carried on by you, I really think it will be a natural thing that you
> will be the Chair in the 'new' Incubator Apache OFbiz project.
>
> Yoav, David W.... am I wrong?

I'm not Yoav or David W. (but also an ASF member) and you're right.

Yes, the commit privileges are administrated by the PMC chair but only
after the PMC has voted on a committer. And the PMC chair is also voted
by the PMC (which basicly consists of the active committers of a project)


Christian
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hans,

I think that you have introduced an interesting point about the
opentravelsystem component: should we move some of the specialized
components to the ASF together with the core OFBiz?

For me it's ok to move the OTS component to the ASF, by the way I'd
prefer a structure like this:

trunk/ofbiz
trunk/website
trunk/specialized/opentravelsystem

What others think about this?

Jacopo

Hans Bakker wrote:

> On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
>> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
>> the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
>> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
>> about this subject?) everything will be easier.
>> About the structure, what about the following one:
>>
>> trunk/ofbiz
>> trunk/website
>>
> I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
> opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where more
> customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first sites
> will go in production the next few months.
>
> Is this possible?
>
> Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Fred Forester-2]

I would like to see the applications split out also. per another thread
going on for a few days on the dev list, our changes are going to
become too "ungeneralized" to go back into ofbiz hence making it
difficult for us for stay in sync with svn as per the svntips on the
Wiki. however we would like to be able to stay in sync with the framework.

Fred



Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hans,
>
> I think that you have introduced an interesting point about the
> opentravelsystem component: should we move some of the specialized
> components to the ASF together with the core OFBiz?
>
> For me it's ok to move the OTS component to the ASF, by the way I'd
> prefer a structure like this:
>
> trunk/ofbiz
> trunk/website
> trunk/specialized/opentravelsystem
>
> What others think about this?
>
> Jacopo
>
> Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>>On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
>>>privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
>>>the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
>>>As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
>>>about this subject?) everything will be easier.
>>>About the structure, what about the following one:
>>>
>>>trunk/ofbiz
>>>trunk/website
>>>
>>
>>I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
>>opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where more
>>customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first sites
>>will go in production the next few months.
>>
>>Is this possible?
>>
>>Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!
>>
>
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Vinay Agarwal]

My understanding was that specialized held components that didn't meet
"some" ofbiz criteria which may be maturity or license or something else. If
opentravelsystem meets the criteria for ofbiz components (and it would be
nice to have that criteria published) it should be moved to applications and
become part of Apache.

Regards,
Vinay Agarwal

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Jacopo Cappellato
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 9:49 AM
To: OFBiz Project Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Dev - No more LGPL jars under the base, application and
framework folders

Hans,

I think that you have introduced an interesting point about the
opentravelsystem component: should we move some of the specialized
components to the ASF together with the core OFBiz?

For me it's ok to move the OTS component to the ASF, by the way I'd prefer a
structure like this:

trunk/ofbiz
trunk/website
trunk/specialized/opentravelsystem

What others think about this?

Jacopo

Hans Bakker wrote:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
>> privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions
>> and the migration of the source code from our current server to the new
one.

>> As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any
>> hints about this subject?) everything will be easier.
>> About the structure, what about the following one:
>>
>> trunk/ofbiz
>> trunk/website
>>
> I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
> opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon
> where more customers/sites can share the same physical installation.
> The first sites will go in production the next few months.
>
> Is this possible?
>
> Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[cjhowe]

Because you're thinking that your changes won't make it back into the OFBiz repository, you may be better off developing your apps in this approach:

<a href="http://ofbizwiki.go-integral.com/Wiki.jsp?page=FAQ28">http://ofbizwiki.go-integral.com/Wiki.jsp?page=FAQ28</a>

With the request->view->screen setup of the controller.xml file this makes it super easy to make changes to the OFBiz components through a second, custom component without touching the OFBiz code (which means it will always sync). 

If you have to make changes to the OFBiz code to get the functionality you require you can maintain a single smaller patch (for changes in java files and ECA definitions, mainly)

Fred Forester <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would like to see the applications split out also. per another thread
going on for a few days on the dev list, our changes are going to
become too "ungeneralized" to go back into ofbiz hence making it
difficult for us for stay in sync with svn as per the svntips on the
Wiki. however we would like to be able to stay in sync with the framework.

Fred



Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hans,
>
> I think that you have introduced an interesting point about the
> opentravelsystem component: should we move some of the specialized
> components to the ASF together with the core OFBiz?
>
> For me it's ok to move the OTS component to the ASF, by the way I'd
> prefer a structure like this:
>
> trunk/ofbiz
> trunk/website
> trunk/specialized/opentravelsystem
>
> What others think about this?
>
> Jacopo
>
> Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>>On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:52, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that it's very important that someone (David Jones) has admin
>>>privileges on the ASF SVN server so that he can manage permissions and
>>>the migration of the source code from our current server to the new one.
>>>As soon as David has these rights (Yoav, David W., do you have any hints
>>>about this subject?) everything will be easier.
>>>About the structure, what about the following one:
>>>
>>>trunk/ofbiz
>>>trunk/website
>>>
>>
>>I would appreciate if a third could be added, currently called the
>>opentravelsystem, but now evolved into a shared ofbiz system addon where more
>>customers/sites can share the same physical installation. The first sites
>>will go in production the next few months.
>>
>>Is this possible?
>>
>>Congratulations with the fact that LGPL packages are now removed!
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev