Lose Weight Program for OFBiz

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> C) $OFBIZ_HOME/debian: move to "Attic"
>>
>> D) the seleniumxml code in framework/testtools: move to "Attic"
>>
>> E) specialpurpose/workflow: move to "Attic"
>>
>> F) specialpurpose/shark: move to "Attic"
>>
>> J) framework/appserver: move to "Extras"

This one I could try to maintain. The others can move to Attic for me.
But I must say that recently I was not able to follow/answer the recent demands after Tomcat evolution.
So maybe in futur to Attic too, and could be resurrected later...

Jacques

>> K) framework/jetty: move to "Extras" (or "Attic")
>
> The above are components/features that don't seem to be used/maintained by the community: some of them are very old (workflow,
> shark, appserver, jetty), some of them are experimental (shark, seleniumxml), some of them are very specialized (debian).
> I have proposed some of them for the Attic and some of them for the Extras but in theory all of them could go to Extras if we find
> at least one maintainer for each; if not, each of them could go to Attic.
> Any ideas? volunteers (OFBiz committers or not)?
> No one objected or commented on them so far (so I suspect that there could be a lazy consensus); for the seleniumxml code there
> was also a thread some weeks ago in the user list where there seemed to be a general consensus (also from the original
> contributors of the work) for the removal (apart from Hans who is using it, it doesn't seem to be used much by the community).
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Nicolas Malin" <[hidden email]>
> Agree with Jacopo, specialpurpose should be on extras.

Huho? ;o)

> Scrum depend of projectmgr, the OFBiz extra will be have a dependency management to ensure that all needed components will be
> present.

Good point!
To all:  is crowd dependent on ldap?

Jacques

> Nicolas
>
> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>> H) specialpurpose/*: move several (if not all, apart ecommerce) of the components to "Extras" (if there are persons interested
>>> to become committers/maintainers) or to "Attic"
>>>
>> There seems to be a general agreement to slim down the number of applications in this group and move them to Extras (see
>> exceptions below).
>> I am summarizing here some notes but we should actually use this thread to continue the discussion about what should go to
>> specialpurpose in general rather than focusing on the decision about removal of specific applications; we can then start a
>> separate thread for each component.
>>
>> Adrian would like to keep one or two components to demonstrate the concept of reusing artifacts to create custom applications
>> (Jacopo: can we use the "exampleext" component for this?)
>> Hans would like to keep the ones that he considers feature complete like asset maintenance, LDAP, POS, e-commerce, cmssite,
>> projectmgr and scrum.
>> Jacopo: in my opinion even in the above list provided by Hans there are applications that are barely examples (cmssite) or are
>> very specific implementation of very specific requirements (difficult to be used if your company doesn't have exactly these
>> requirements): projectmgr and scrum; some of these components also extends (adding special purpose fields) the generic data model
>> and this happens even if the user is not interested in evaluating the specialpurpose component. I also don't think that some of
>> the components meet minimum quality requirements to be distributed with OFBiz: for example the scrum component uses a mechanism
>> that is unique to demo its features (i.e. published a demo webapp with online instructions for demo data) that is not used by
>> other applications (and this makes the suite of applications inconsistent); also, the component refers to resources that are
>> owned by Hans' company. All in all, they seem very specific piece of codes that should better live as optional plugins downloaded
>> separately. So in my opinion the "concept" of specialpurpose application is in general better suited for Apache Extras rather
>> than for the OFBiz svn and releases.
>
>
> --
> Nicolas MALIN
> Consultant
> Tél : [phone]
> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
> -------
> Société LibrenBerry
> Tél : [phone]
> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Nicolas Malin" <[hidden email]>

> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax
>> examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if in your vision the "example" application should
>> document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we could use the output of the "ant create-component" task to
>> document the best practice layout.
>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>
>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution to please everyone:
>>
>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the bare essential
>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all the extra features: this could also be used as a best
>> practice guide on how to extend a component from hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>
>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example" component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should
>> be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat
>> and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>>
>> Jacopo
> example and exampleext are they useful for production site ?
> if Apache OFBiz implement a plugin manager, why don't use ant (or other) to prepare OFBiz according to its use.
>
> If you want develop on OFBiz, when you download from svn run : ant run-install-dev (it's a example ;)) and ant use plugin manager
> to resolve all extras project that compose the official OFBiz developer package.

Interesting, it's based on Ivy, right? Did you ever re-consider Maven (I know the historical ;o)?
I guess ant+Ivy is more flexible? I prefer it too, but only crossed Maven during a Geronimo developement

> [my life]
> At this time, I comment all unneeded components as example on production site. It isn't a problem, just I don't find clean :)
> [/my life]

Yes, I do the same, and certainly others as well...

Jacques

> --
> Nicolas MALIN
> Consultant
> Tél : [phone]
> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
> -------
> Société LibrenBerry
> Tél : [phone]
> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>

[J. Eckard-2]

I currently use jetty, and keep it updated internally to track the jetty 6 codebase. I have no problem with it being removed from the framework, as long as we don't assume or require tomcat in the future.


On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

>
>> C) $OFBIZ_HOME/debian: move to "Attic"
>>
>> D) the seleniumxml code in framework/testtools: move to "Attic"
>>
>> E) specialpurpose/workflow: move to "Attic"
>>
>> F) specialpurpose/shark: move to "Attic"
>>
>> J) framework/appserver: move to "Extras"
>>
>> K) framework/jetty: move to "Extras" (or "Attic")
>
> The above are components/features that don't seem to be used/maintained by the community: some of them are very old (workflow, shark, appserver, jetty), some of them are experimental (shark, seleniumxml), some of them are very specialized (debian).
> I have proposed some of them for the Attic and some of them for the Extras but in theory all of them could go to Extras if we find at least one maintainer for each; if not, each of them could go to Attic.
> Any ideas? volunteers (OFBiz committers or not)?
> No one objected or commented on them so far (so I suspect that there could be a lazy consensus); for the seleniumxml code there was also a thread some weeks ago in the user list where there seemed to be a general consensus (also from the original contributors of the work) for the removal (apart from Hans who is using it, it doesn't seem to be used much by the community).
>
> Jacopo
>

[Mansour]

Ant+Ivy would fit easier with the structure of ofbiz components.
If we want to move to maven, then a modification to
org/ofbiz/base/location/FlexibleLocation.java has to be
done to allow loading resource from a jar file. I am assuming with
maven, you want to package the whole component in
a jar file. I think this is good idea, and it will have to done for OSGI anyway.
But for the moment, I think Ant+Ivy are more suitable.




On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: "Nicolas Malin" <[hidden email]>
>
>> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>>>
>>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot
>>> to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax
>>> examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if
>>> in your vision the "example" application should
>>> document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we could
>>> use the output of the "ant create-component" task to
>>> document the best practice layout.
>>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various
>>> higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>>
>>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution
>>> to please everyone:
>>>
>>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the
>>> bare essential
>>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all
>>> the extra features: this could also be used as a best
>>> practice guide on how to extend a component from
>>> hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>>
>>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example"
>>> component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should
>>> be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between
>>> framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat
>>> and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>> example and exampleext are they useful for production site ?
>> if Apache OFBiz implement a plugin manager, why don't use ant (or other)
>> to prepare OFBiz according to its use.
>>
>> If you want develop on OFBiz, when you download from svn run : ant
>> run-install-dev (it's a example ;)) and ant use plugin manager
>> to resolve all extras project that compose the official OFBiz developer
>> package.
>
>
> Interesting, it's based on Ivy, right? Did you ever re-consider Maven (I
> know the historical ;o)?
> I guess ant+Ivy is more flexible? I prefer it too, but only crossed Maven
> during a Geronimo developement
>
>
>> [my life]
>> At this time, I comment all unneeded components as example on production
>> site. It isn't a problem, just I don't find clean :)
>> [/my life]
>
>
> Yes, I do the same, and certainly others as well...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>> --
>> Nicolas MALIN
>> Consultant
>> Tél : [phone]
>> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
>> -------
>> Société LibrenBerry
>> Tél : [phone]
>> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

You could maybe contribute your work on it?

Jacques

From: "J. Eckard" <[hidden email]>

>I currently use jetty, and keep it updated internally to track the jetty 6 codebase. I have no problem with it being removed from
>the framework, as long as we don't assume or require tomcat in the future.
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>>
>>> C) $OFBIZ_HOME/debian: move to "Attic"
>>>
>>> D) the seleniumxml code in framework/testtools: move to "Attic"
>>>
>>> E) specialpurpose/workflow: move to "Attic"
>>>
>>> F) specialpurpose/shark: move to "Attic"
>>>
>>> J) framework/appserver: move to "Extras"
>>>
>>> K) framework/jetty: move to "Extras" (or "Attic")
>>
>> The above are components/features that don't seem to be used/maintained by the community: some of them are very old (workflow,
>> shark, appserver, jetty), some of them are experimental (shark, seleniumxml), some of them are very specialized (debian).
>> I have proposed some of them for the Attic and some of them for the Extras but in theory all of them could go to Extras if we
>> find at least one maintainer for each; if not, each of them could go to Attic.
>> Any ideas? volunteers (OFBiz committers or not)?
>> No one objected or commented on them so far (so I suspect that there could be a lazy consensus); for the seleniumxml code there
>> was also a thread some weeks ago in the user list where there seemed to be a general consensus (also from the original
>> contributors of the work) for the removal (apart from Hans who is using it, it doesn't seem to be used much by the community).
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I did not intend to use Maven at all, but good catch and yes for a (possible far) future iteration

Jacques

From: "Mansour Al Akeel" <[hidden email]>

> Ant+Ivy would fit easier with the structure of ofbiz components.
> If we want to move to maven, then a modification to
> org/ofbiz/base/location/FlexibleLocation.java has to be
> done to allow loading resource from a jar file. I am assuming with
> maven, you want to package the whole component in
> a jar file. I think this is good idea, and it will have to done for OSGI anyway.
> But for the moment, I think Ant+Ivy are more suitable.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> From: "Nicolas Malin" <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>>>>
>>>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot
>>>> to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax
>>>> examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if
>>>> in your vision the "example" application should
>>>> document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we could
>>>> use the output of the "ant create-component" task to
>>>> document the best practice layout.
>>>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various
>>>> higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>>>
>>>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution
>>>> to please everyone:
>>>>
>>>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the
>>>> bare essential
>>>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all
>>>> the extra features: this could also be used as a best
>>>> practice guide on how to extend a component from
>>>> hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>>>
>>>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example"
>>>> component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should
>>>> be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between
>>>> framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat
>>>> and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> example and exampleext are they useful for production site ?
>>> if Apache OFBiz implement a plugin manager, why don't use ant (or other)
>>> to prepare OFBiz according to its use.
>>>
>>> If you want develop on OFBiz, when you download from svn run : ant
>>> run-install-dev (it's a example ;)) and ant use plugin manager
>>> to resolve all extras project that compose the official OFBiz developer
>>> package.
>>
>>
>> Interesting, it's based on Ivy, right? Did you ever re-consider Maven (I
>> know the historical ;o)?
>> I guess ant+Ivy is more flexible? I prefer it too, but only crossed Maven
>> during a Geronimo developement
>>
>>
>>> [my life]
>>> At this time, I comment all unneeded components as example on production
>>> site. It isn't a problem, just I don't find clean :)
>>> [/my life]
>>
>>
>> Yes, I do the same, and certainly others as well...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Nicolas MALIN
>>> Consultant
>>> Tél : [phone]
>>> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
>>> -------
>>> Société LibrenBerry
>>> Tél : [phone]
>>> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>>>
>>
>

[Malin Nicolas]

Le 20/03/2012 16:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> From: "Nicolas Malin" <[hidden email]>
>> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down
>>> a lot to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax
>>> examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please
>>> confirm if in your vision the "example" application should
>>> document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we
>>> could use the output of the "ant create-component" task to
>>> document the best practice layout.
>>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the
>>> various higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>>
>>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following
>>> solution to please everyone:
>>>
>>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to
>>> the bare essential
>>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to
>>> it all the extra features: this could also be used as a best
>>> practice guide on how to extend a component from
>>> hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>>
>>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example"
>>> component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should
>>> be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between
>>> framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat
>>> and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>> example and exampleext are they useful for production site ?
>> if Apache OFBiz implement a plugin manager, why don't use ant (or
>> other) to prepare OFBiz according to its use.
>>
>> If you want develop on OFBiz, when you download from svn run : ant
>> run-install-dev (it's a example ;)) and ant use plugin manager
>> to resolve all extras project that compose the official OFBiz
>> developer package.
>
> Interesting, it's based on Ivy, right?

In my mind yes, but I set an idea not a solution ;)
> Did you ever re-consider Maven (I know the historical ;o)?
> I guess ant+Ivy is more flexible? I prefer it too, but only crossed
> Maven during a Geronimo developement
I prefer ant + ivy too

>
>> [my life]
>> At this time, I comment all unneeded components as example on
>> production site. It isn't a problem, just I don't find clean :)
>> [/my life]
>
> Yes, I do the same, and certainly others as well...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> --
>> Nicolas MALIN
>> Consultant
>> Tél : [phone]
>> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
>> -------
>> Société LibrenBerry
>> Tél : [phone]
>> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>>

--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : [phone]
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : [phone]
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/

[Anil Patel-3]

I prefer keep Flat Gray theme in Ofbiz over others.

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel

On Mar 20, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Mansour Al Akeel" <[hidden email]>
>> Flat Gray is simple, and clear.
>> It serves well as a basic theme.
>> AFAIK, it the only theme that supports both directions for languages
>> LTR and RTL.
>
> Right and Tomahawk is the last evolution of all others. I prefer Tomahawk: it's easier to find you way because of hierarchised menus (with only 2 levels).
> Flat Gray is a must have because of LTR and RTL (thanks Adrian!)
>
> One project for all themes in Extra makes sense to me.
> Some/all? (all but Bizzness are pre-evolutions of Tomahawk) could go in Attic (I never got to use Bizzness), to be voted...
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> My preference is to keep Flat Grey and one other theme - I have no
>>> preference on what that other theme is.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>>> I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a few of them
>>>>> to "Extras"; keep just one (or two)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jacques proposed to keep Tomahawk (default) and Flat Grey.
>>>> Olivier proposed to keep just one (Tomahawk, I guess).
>>>> No other comments so far.
>>>> What should be do with the remaining themes? Attic or Extras? Are there
>>>> volunteers for Extras? I would suggest that, if we move them to Extras we
>>>> create *one* project only (for all the themes) rather than one project for
>>>> theme... but I would love to get your feedback on this.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>

[Anil Patel-3]

I use example component as my reference for best practice guide. Still I think its better placed in Ofbiz Extras.  

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc

On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Nicolas Malin wrote:

> Le 20/03/2012 16:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> From: "Nicolas Malin" <[hidden email]>
>>> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>>>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax
>>>> examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if in your vision the "example" application should
>>>> document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we could use the output of the "ant create-component" task to
>>>> document the best practice layout.
>>>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>>>
>>>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution to please everyone:
>>>>
>>>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the bare essential
>>>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all the extra features: this could also be used as a best
>>>> practice guide on how to extend a component from hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>>>
>>>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example" component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should
>>>> be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat
>>>> and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>> example and exampleext are they useful for production site ?
>>> if Apache OFBiz implement a plugin manager, why don't use ant (or other) to prepare OFBiz according to its use.
>>>
>>> If you want develop on OFBiz, when you download from svn run : ant run-install-dev (it's a example ;)) and ant use plugin manager
>>> to resolve all extras project that compose the official OFBiz developer package.
>>
>> Interesting, it's based on Ivy, right?
> In my mind yes, but I set an idea not a solution ;)
>> Did you ever re-consider Maven (I know the historical ;o)?
>> I guess ant+Ivy is more flexible? I prefer it too, but only crossed Maven during a Geronimo developement
> I prefer ant + ivy too
>
>>
>>> [my life]
>>> At this time, I comment all unneeded components as example on production site. It isn't a problem, just I don't find clean :)
>>> [/my life]
>>
>> Yes, I do the same, and certainly others as well...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Nicolas MALIN
>>> Consultant
>>> Tél : [phone]
>>> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
>>> -------
>>> Société LibrenBerry
>>> Tél : [phone]
>>> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>>>
>
>
> --
> Nicolas MALIN
> Consultant
> Tél : [phone]
> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
> -------
> Société LibrenBerry
> Tél : [phone]
> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Another data point: I've been in several OFBiz shops recently and have
observed that many people end up using Flat Grey. Not sure why this is.

IMHO Tomahawk looks nice, but in the end, the mixture of dark and light
is hard on the eyes. Having to scroll over to expose links makes
navigation more cumbersome. The hierarchical features are really nice,
but if you have to hunt around to find them, it diminishes their appeal.
This is just my opinion and the reason I always end up using Flat Grey.

Best Regards,
Ruth Hoffman
On 3/20/12 12:36 PM, Anil Patel wrote:

> I prefer keep Flat Gray theme in Ofbiz over others.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Anil Patel
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Mansour Al Akeel"<[hidden email]>
>>> Flat Gray is simple, and clear.
>>> It serves well as a basic theme.
>>> AFAIK, it the only theme that supports both directions for languages
>>> LTR and RTL.
>> Right and Tomahawk is the last evolution of all others. I prefer Tomahawk: it's easier to find you way because of hierarchised menus (with only 2 levels).
>> Flat Gray is a must have because of LTR and RTL (thanks Adrian!)
>>
>> One project for all themes in Extra makes sense to me.
>> Some/all? (all but Bizzness are pre-evolutions of Tomahawk) could go in Attic (I never got to use Bizzness), to be voted...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM,<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> My preference is to keep Flat Grey and one other theme - I have no
>>>> preference on what that other theme is.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>>> I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a few of them
>>>>>> to "Extras"; keep just one (or two)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques proposed to keep Tomahawk (default) and Flat Grey.
>>>>> Olivier proposed to keep just one (Tomahawk, I guess).
>>>>> No other comments so far.
>>>>> What should be do with the remaining themes? Attic or Extras? Are there
>>>>> volunteers for Extras? I would suggest that, if we move them to Extras we
>>>>> create *one* project only (for all the themes) rather than one project for
>>>>> theme... but I would love to get your feedback on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>

[Ashish Vijaywargiya]

My vote will be to keep two themes in the project. IMO Flatgrey theme is
the best to keep as the default one for the project.

--
Ashish

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a few of them
> to "Extras"; keep just one (or two)
> >
>
> Jacques proposed to keep Tomahawk (default) and Flat Grey.
> Olivier proposed to keep just one (Tomahawk, I guess).
> No other comments so far.
> What should be do with the remaining themes? Attic or Extras? Are there
> volunteers for Extras? I would suggest that, if we move them to Extras we
> create *one* project only (for all the themes) rather than one project for
> theme... but I would love to get your feedback on this.
>
> Jacopo

[Scott Gray-2]

I'm in favor of moving all special purpose apps to Extras (or Attic for some of the older/unused ones) except for ecommerce.  Even then the only reason I'd like to keep ecommerce is because it is the only special purpose app that is almost universally useful to OFBiz users and I'd like to keep it under our control for now at least.

So I'd like to see pos moved to Extras and perhaps these users of it can step up and help maintain it.

Regards
Scott

On 21/03/2012, at 4:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Makes sense
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> A) move framework/guiapp out of the framework; after all these years no code made advantage of it being part of the framework and it is only used by the specialpurpose/pos component (which was the component for which it was built for); so guiapp can go in the pos component
>>>>
>>>> B) specialpurpose/pos: move to "Extras"
>>>>
>>>
>>> No one objected so far; Jacques offered his help for #A.
>>> Should we focus on #A for now (it is an actionable item) and then discuss #B also based on the outcome of similar discussions for other specialpurpose components?
>>
>> Yes, I know there are POS users out there. So I now wonder if we should not wait before moving it out of specialpurpose. When you think about it, it's the twin of eCommerce. With a bit more involvment though, mostly because of its relation with Entity Sync (maintenance) which is actually part of the framework (entityext component).
>>
>> Jacques
>

[Erwan de FERRIERES]

Le 20/03/2012 12:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
>>
>
> Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case someone will pick up the work and complete it in the future.
> I would like to mention that, if the original goal was "to eat our own dog food" and run the OFBiz site on it, then this could be in contrast with the ASF infrastructure offered to the projects.
>
> Jacopo
What is missing on this component ?
I think we should keep it where it is, but like for JCR, write a small
roadmap on what we need. The website is somehow dependent from JCR, if
we implement it completely.

--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz

[Erwan de FERRIERES]

Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>
> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if in your vision the "example" application should document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we could use the output of the "ant create-component" task to document the best practice layout.
> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>
> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution to please everyone:
>
> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the bare essential
> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all the extra features: this could also be used as a best practice guide on how to extend a component from hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>
> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example" component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>
> Jacopo
>
>

create 2 components, one basic with simple CRUD and no ajax or whatever,
and another one with more eye candy stuff (ajax, modal forms, etc...).
Both components should be in specialpurpose/
I'm not in favor of moving them to extras, as when delivering an
official release there should be a showcase included. And as Adrian
said, when teaching people how to create apps with OFBiz, this could be
really useful. And with JSR-223, there's a lot to add !

--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz

[Scott Gray-2]

On 21/03/2012, at 9:24 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

> Le 20/03/2012 12:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>>> G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
>>>
>>
>> Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case someone will pick up the work and complete it in the future.
>> I would like to mention that, if the original goal was "to eat our own dog food" and run the OFBiz site on it, then this could be in contrast with the ASF infrastructure offered to the projects.
>>
>> Jacopo
> What is missing on this component ?
> I think we should keep it where it is, but like for JCR, write a small roadmap on what we need. The website is somehow dependent from JCR, if we implement it completely.
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
> www.nereide.biz

What possible benefit does this component offer to our users?  It's nothing more than a ridiculously large example component.  If we were going to keep this in OFBiz we'd need a new component folder, maybe "extremelyspecialpurpose" or perhaps "notreallyanypurpose".

+1 for moving to extras if there are any volunteers to maintain it otherwise, +1 for the attic. (This is essentially my vote for all the special purpose apps except ecommerce)

Regards
Scott

[Mansour]

Everyone has different preference about how would the basic component
skeleton looks like (ie, with ajax, without, exta functionality ....
).
Even if a basic example included with ofbiz distribution, in the
future it will grow again with extra unneeded functionality, or it
will be an on going discussion about what should go there.

It's much easier to provide a very basic skeleton as a separate
download, to serve as an example and a reference. There could be more
than one example provided, each showing different capabilities and
different techniques. This is better than creating one huge example to
show everything, and better than showing only the basics without any
additional tips (ie, ajax).

Those who are not satisfied with the examples as a skeleton, can
maintain their own copy that will make him/her start a component
quickly.

Examples are not needed to run ofbiz.


On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>
>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>>
>>
>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot
>> to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax examples, no content
>> examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if in your vision the
>> "example" application should document the layout of a typical OFBiz
>> component only? If yes, we could use the output of the "ant
>> create-component" task to document the best practice layout.
>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various
>> higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>
>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution to
>> please everyone:
>>
>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the
>> bare essential
>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all
>> the extra features: this could also be used as a best practice guide on how
>> to extend a component from hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>
>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example" component
>> ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should be downloaded
>> separately (when we will have clear separation between framework and the
>> rest); this approach is similar to tomcat and its example applications. But
>> I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
> create 2 components, one basic with simple CRUD and no ajax or whatever, and
> another one with more eye candy stuff (ajax, modal forms, etc...). Both
> components should be in specialpurpose/
> I'm not in favor of moving them to extras, as when delivering an official
> release there should be a showcase included. And as Adrian said, when
> teaching people how to create apps with OFBiz, this could be really useful.
> And with JSR-223, there's a lot to add !
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
> www.nereide.biz

[Jacques Le Roux]

I see that most people prefer Flat Grey.

Let me explain why I prefer Tomahawk.

Did you ever wonder why the paper we write on has more than often a greater height than width, why newspaper have many columns, etc.
Here is an answer http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/3553/why-do-newspapers-use-multiple-columns

OK, my argument: don't you feel a pain to find an application, a menu entry in Flat Grey? No? Then you are used to find it at some
place and don't care anymore. Now just imagine the same for a new user...

This is where Tomahawk is better. It's far easier to find an entry in 2 colums (applications in Tomahawk) than in 7 columns
(applications in Flat Grey). Or an entry in an application (1 column for Tomahawk, up to 14 in Flat Grey). Just try it

Another point: Product screens are awful in Flat Grey (to many buttons for menus, hard to spot). Though actually I believe Tomahawk
would benefit from a third column, for instance for Product. This could be 2 twin columns if more than, say, 15 entries would show
in a column. Like we have for Applications, though not sure how it's organized. I mean why some are in right column and other in
left one? Also something wich could help spot entries quicker would be to allow sorting entries in menus by language. It's now only
done based on English.

OK, now there is the RTL feature. Who use it? Few I guess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-left 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-to-right#Directionality). Which does not diminish RTL importance, but ponders it in choice for a
default theme.

My 2 cts

Jacques


From: "Ashish Vijaywargiya" <[hidden email]>

> My vote will be to keep two themes in the project. IMO Flatgrey theme is
> the best to keep as the default one for the project.
>
> --
> Ashish
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> > I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a few of them
>> to "Extras"; keep just one (or two)
>> >
>>
>> Jacques proposed to keep Tomahawk (default) and Flat Grey.
>> Olivier proposed to keep just one (Tomahawk, I guess).
>> No other comments so far.
>> What should be do with the remaining themes? Attic or Extras? Are there
>> volunteers for Extras? I would suggest that, if we move them to Extras we
>> create *one* project only (for all the themes) rather than one project for
>> theme... but I would love to get your feedback on this.
>>
>> Jacopo
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]>

> On 21/03/2012, at 9:24 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>
>> Le 20/03/2012 12:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>
>>>> G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case someone will pick up the work and complete it in the
>>> future.
>>> I would like to mention that, if the original goal was "to eat our own dog food" and run the OFBiz site on it, then this could
>>> be in contrast with the ASF infrastructure offered to the projects.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>> What is missing on this component ?
>> I think we should keep it where it is, but like for JCR, write a small roadmap on what we need. The website is somehow dependent
>> from JCR, if we implement it completely.
>>
>> --
>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>> www.nereide.biz
>
> What possible benefit does this component offer to our users?  It's nothing more than a ridiculously large example component.  If
> we were going to keep this in OFBiz we'd need a new component folder, maybe "extremelyspecialpurpose" or perhaps
> "notreallyanypurpose".
>
> +1 for moving to extras if there are any volunteers to maintain it otherwise, +1 for the attic. (This is essentially my vote for
> all the special purpose apps except ecommerce)

This sounds like a wise/experienced suggestion

Jacques

> Regards
> Scott

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Mansour Al Akeel" <[hidden email]>

> Everyone has different preference about how would the basic component
> skeleton looks like (ie, with ajax, without, exta functionality ....
> ).
> Even if a basic example included with ofbiz distribution, in the
> future it will grow again with extra unneeded functionality, or it
> will be an on going discussion about what should go there.
>
> It's much easier to provide a very basic skeleton as a separate
> download, to serve as an example and a reference. There could be more
> than one example provided, each showing different capabilities and
> different techniques. This is better than creating one huge example to
> show everything, and better than showing only the basics without any
> additional tips (ie, ajax).
>
> Those who are not satisfied with the examples as a skeleton, can
> maintain their own copy that will make him/her start a component
> quickly.
>
> Examples are not needed to run ofbiz.

So they (examples and examplesext) could be in specialpurpose (+1) of even Extras (0)

Jacques

>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot
>>> to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax examples, no content
>>> examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if in your vision the
>>> "example" application should document the layout of a typical OFBiz
>>> component only? If yes, we could use the output of the "ant
>>> create-component" task to document the best practice layout.
>>> Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various
>>> higher level features available to OFBiz applications.
>>>
>>> I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution to
>>> please everyone:
>>>
>>> * keep the "example" component in the framework but slim it down to the
>>> bare essential
>>> * move the "exampleext" component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all
>>> the extra features: this could also be used as a best practice guide on how
>>> to extend a component from hot-deploy/specialpurpose
>>>
>>> I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the "example" component
>>> ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should be downloaded
>>> separately (when we will have clear separation between framework and the
>>> rest); this approach is similar to tomcat and its example applications. But
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on this.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>> create 2 components, one basic with simple CRUD and no ajax or whatever, and
>> another one with more eye candy stuff (ajax, modal forms, etc...). Both
>> components should be in specialpurpose/
>> I'm not in favor of moving them to extras, as when delivering an official
>> release there should be a showcase included. And as Adrian said, when
>> teaching people how to create apps with OFBiz, this could be really useful.
>> And with JSR-223, there's a lot to add !
>>
>> --
>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>> www.nereide.biz
>