OFBiz in Canada?

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven would stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to remove components.
>

The best ways to do this are:
a) assigning proper permissions to users so that only the relevant applications are shown OR
b) remove the "webapp" elements from the ofbiz-component.xml files

> Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get used makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like "why are all those tables created even though they aren't used?"
>

They are there because sooner or later the customer may discover that they need them (by experience this happens very often) and it is easier to configure the data to use them. When we consider the ERP "applications" it doesn't make much sense to consider them independent because they model the real world and in the real world they are very inter dependent.
On the other hand, if you want to build an application from scratch and just use OFBiz framework, the best way to go is to remove the "applications" and "specialpurpose" folders. It will work even if we still have to clean up a few things (for example it would be cool to have a user interface in Webtools to manage users and permissions... i.e. move it from Party to Webtools).

Jacopo

> Abdullah Shaikh wrote:
>> Chris, I guess you mean to simplify the things, but then Ofbiz doesn't force
>> to use all components, user can use only the required components and can
>> ignore the rest.
>>
>> As you said, probably party management, maybe someone else wants to only
>> order management or only ecommerce, so if all the components are there, user
>> can decide which one to use.
>>
>> -Abdullah
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> If a company start using ofbiz for small applications using just the
>>> development framework, they can be very productive within a few weeks.
>>> However, if they have to take on board the whole of ofbiz (i.e. the
>>> components) before they get started, that is a huge task that may put them
>>> off using ofbiz.
>>>
>>> If ofbiz followed the modular approach using maven, companies could start
>>> using ofbiz core (+ probably party management), and then use more and more
>>> of the other components as they get more experienced.
>>> Charles TJ - SELC Sales Div wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> I am agree with you Chris, the OFBiz is an excellent framework;
>>>> OFBiz is like "The Beauty and The Beast".
>>>> The Beast for the newcomers, but if we understand the framework,
>>>> you will find "The Beauty of the OFBiz".
>>>>
>>>> - Charles TJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Christopher Snow [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: 13 Nopember 2009 15:18
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz in Canada?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ofbiz is an excellent application development framework.  I think that any
>>>> efforts that would focus on selling this aspect would attract newcomers to
>>>> the project.  In the past, I have recommended ofbiz as a development
>>>> framework to a few architects and senior developers that I have worked with.
>>>> When they take a look at the ofbiz site, their first reaction is to reject
>>>> ofbiz as they think it is just another ecommerce application.
>>>>
>>>> I know a few of the users on the mailing list would like to see the core
>>>> development framework of ofbiz separated from the other components.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to know how many of the committers for ofbiz that
>>>> DON'T use ofbiz primarily for ecommerce.  I think that would be the main
>>>> stumbling block to separating the core development framework.
>>>>
>>>> There are some interesting areas being worked on that such as Hans
>>>> Bakker's BIRT implementation and /Jacques Le/ Roux Axis integration for
>>>> complex types that will give the development framework even more power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>    
>>
>>  
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused components in place have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space.  Some of the components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.

Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.

Jacopo

[jonatan soto]

Maven can also solve the problem of the distributable releases, centralize a
repository for the modules and much more. The inclusion of Maven affects all
the life cycle of any project improving the control of all the required
phases. But i understand that Ofbiz is a very huge and mature project so
that means it will be very difficult to integrate it.

From my point of view, it's very dificult to decide between Ofbiz and other
ERP. As a new user/developer I see Ofbiz almost focused to ecommerce that is
very convenient for my present ecommerce project but in the other hand I see
Ofbiz dificult to 'sell' if I decide to do some consulting for a
non-ecommerce companies. Anyway I will bet for Ofbiz because it is an Apache
project, and it makes me more confortable even more when I think how Apache
projects have been changed my developer life.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Abdullah Shaikh <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not sure, I haven't tried this, but could commenting the not required
> components from component-load.xml file have helped ?
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Christopher Snow <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency
> > problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven would
> > stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to remove
> > components.
> >
> > Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get used
> > makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like "why are
> all
> > those tables created even though they aren't used?"
> >
> >
> > Abdullah Shaikh wrote:
> >
> >> Chris, I guess you mean to simplify the things, but then Ofbiz doesn't
> >> force
> >> to use all components, user can use only the required components and can
> >> ignore the rest.
> >>
> >> As you said, probably party management, maybe someone else wants to only
> >> order management or only ecommerce, so if all the components are there,
> >> user
> >> can decide which one to use.
> >>
> >> -Abdullah
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Christopher Snow <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If a company start using ofbiz for small applications using just the
> >>> development framework, they can be very productive within a few weeks.
> >>> However, if they have to take on board the whole of ofbiz (i.e. the
> >>> components) before they get started, that is a huge task that may put
> >>> them
> >>> off using ofbiz.
> >>>
> >>> If ofbiz followed the modular approach using maven, companies could
> start
> >>> using ofbiz core (+ probably party management), and then use more and
> >>> more
> >>> of the other components as they get more experienced.
> >>>  Charles TJ - SELC Sales Div wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I am agree with you Chris, the OFBiz is an excellent framework;
> >>>> OFBiz is like "The Beauty and The Beast".
> >>>> The Beast for the newcomers, but if we understand the framework,
> >>>> you will find "The Beauty of the OFBiz".
> >>>>
> >>>> - Charles TJ
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Christopher Snow [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >>>> Sent: 13 Nopember 2009 15:18
> >>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz in Canada?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ofbiz is an excellent application development framework.  I think that
> >>>> any
> >>>> efforts that would focus on selling this aspect would attract
> newcomers
> >>>> to
> >>>> the project.  In the past, I have recommended ofbiz as a development
> >>>> framework to a few architects and senior developers that I have worked
> >>>> with.
> >>>>  When they take a look at the ofbiz site, their first reaction is to
> >>>> reject
> >>>> ofbiz as they think it is just another ecommerce application.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know a few of the users on the mailing list would like to see the
> core
> >>>> development framework of ofbiz separated from the other components.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be interesting to know how many of the committers for ofbiz
> >>>> that
> >>>> DON'T use ofbiz primarily for ecommerce.  I think that would be the
> main
> >>>> stumbling block to separating the core development framework.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are some interesting areas being worked on that such as Hans
> >>>> Bakker's BIRT implementation and /Jacques Le/ Roux Axis integration
> for
> >>>> complex types that will give the development framework even more
> power.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

--
Jonatan Soto Aguilera
C/ Comte Borrell, 328 3º4ª
08029 Barcelona
Telf: [phone]
Móvil: [phone]
www.japanflavour.com

[Chris Snow-3]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>
>  
>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused components in place have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space.  Some of the components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.
>>    
>
> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.
>
> Jacopo

Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it
like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with
lightweight applications like OpenERP.

Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't
required.

Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in
control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused components in place have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space.  Some of the components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.
>>>    
>>
>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.
>>
>> Jacopo
> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with lightweight applications like OpenERP.
>
> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't required.
>
> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.
>

No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
And I am not in control of OFBiz...

Jacopo

[Chris Snow-3]

>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't required.
>>
>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.
>>
>>    
>
> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>  

Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?

[Zhibin Liang]

I'm with you chris, ofbiz is a very nice framework to develop any web
applications, not just erp/ecommerce applications.

Cheers,


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Snow [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz in Canada?

That's the approach I tried when I ran into dependency problems.  This
then worried me that if I did fix the dependency problem I found, what
other dependency issues would I run into later down the line?

A developer learning ofbiz doesn't need to think about component
dependencies on top of learning the framework!

I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place
even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused components in place
have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components consume memory?
- they are certainly using disk space.  Some of the components for
example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.

Can you imagine if Eclipse worked by making you install every plugin
available even if you don't use it?  The performance impact on eclipse
wouldn't be too bad though because eclipse lazily loads plugins when
they are first used.


Abdullah Shaikh wrote:

> I am not sure, I haven't tried this, but could commenting the not required
> components from component-load.xml file have helped ?
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Christopher Snow <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency
>> problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven would
>> stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to remove
>> components.
>>
>> Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get used
>> makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like "why are

all
>> those tables created even though they aren't used?"
>>
>>
>>    

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

>
>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't required.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.
>>>
>>>    
>>
>> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
>> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
>> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>  
> Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
>

Definitely: OFBiz is designed and implemented as a component based framework, where components can be easily extends other components, be switched on/off etc...
So modular OFBiz is a reality.

Jacopo

[Scott Gray-2]

Chris,

Very few things are ever not an option, but just because someone turns  
up on the mailing list out of nowhere and proposes something vague  
doesn't mean that it is suddenly a valid idea that everyone should  
take seriously.  OFBiz like every other apache project is a  
meritocracy, the people in "control" are the people who actually get  
things done for the project.

Regards
Scott

On 13/11/2009, at 11:53 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:

>
>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that  
>>> isn't required.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option!  
>>> People in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their  
>>> business model.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
>> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them  
>> before attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
>> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
> Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
>
>
>

[Chris Snow-3]

Scott,

I agree that the community changes ofbiz by committing.  And as a
non-committer and just and end user, all I have is a voice.

I just found the arguments against the proposal to be unfounded and not
in the best interests of the ofbiz project.   For example, the comment
about disk space and memory being cheap can't be serious - there aren't
many examples of monolithic software anymore.

I think rather than hearing just objections, I would have preferred to
have heard a response along the lines of:

"the idea sounds interesting and warrants more investigation - please
feel free to put a design or prototype together".

Cheers,

Chris


Scott Gray wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Very few things are ever not an option, but just because someone turns
> up on the mailing list out of nowhere and proposes something vague
> doesn't mean that it is suddenly a valid idea that everyone should
> take seriously.  OFBiz like every other apache project is a
> meritocracy, the people in "control" are the people who actually get
> things done for the project.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 13/11/2009, at 11:53 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People
>>>> in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business
>>>> model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
>>> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before
>>> attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
>>> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
>>
>>
>>
>

[BJ Freeman]

I had the same complaint at one time.
I now keep my own version under a different brand name.
That is about all you can do.


Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place
>>> even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused components in
>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components
>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space.  Some of the
>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.
>>>    
>>
>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.
>>
>> Jacopo
> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it
> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with
> lightweight applications like OpenERP.
>
> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't
> required.
>
> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in
> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.
>
>

--
BJ Freeman
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation
http://bjfreeman.elance.com
http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro
Systems Integrator.

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jonatan,

From: "jonatan soto" <[hidden email]>
Maven can also solve the problem of the distributable releases, centralize a
repository for the modules and much more. The inclusion of Maven affects all
the life cycle of any project improving the control of all the required
phases. But i understand that Ofbiz is a very huge and mature project so
that means it will be very difficult to integrate it.

I agree Maven 2 is great but, you got the point <<very difficult to integrate ...>>.
We have other priorities...

Thanks

Jacques

>From my point of view, it's very dificult to decide between Ofbiz and other
ERP. As a new user/developer I see Ofbiz almost focused to ecommerce that is
very convenient for my present ecommerce project but in the other hand I see
Ofbiz dificult to 'sell' if I decide to do some consulting for a
non-ecommerce companies. Anyway I will bet for Ofbiz because it is an Apache
project, and it makes me more confortable even more when I think how Apache
projects have been changed my developer life.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Abdullah Shaikh <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not sure, I haven't tried this, but could commenting the not required
> components from component-load.xml file have helped ?
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Christopher Snow <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency
> > problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven would
> > stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to remove
> > components.
> >
> > Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get used
> > makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like "why are
> all
> > those tables created even though they aren't used?"
> >
> >
> > Abdullah Shaikh wrote:
> >
> >> Chris, I guess you mean to simplify the things, but then Ofbiz doesn't
> >> force
> >> to use all components, user can use only the required components and can
> >> ignore the rest.
> >>
> >> As you said, probably party management, maybe someone else wants to only
> >> order management or only ecommerce, so if all the components are there,
> >> user
> >> can decide which one to use.
> >>
> >> -Abdullah
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Christopher Snow <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If a company start using ofbiz for small applications using just the
> >>> development framework, they can be very productive within a few weeks.
> >>> However, if they have to take on board the whole of ofbiz (i.e. the
> >>> components) before they get started, that is a huge task that may put
> >>> them
> >>> off using ofbiz.
> >>>
> >>> If ofbiz followed the modular approach using maven, companies could
> start
> >>> using ofbiz core (+ probably party management), and then use more and
> >>> more
> >>> of the other components as they get more experienced.
> >>>  Charles TJ - SELC Sales Div wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I am agree with you Chris, the OFBiz is an excellent framework;
> >>>> OFBiz is like "The Beauty and The Beast".
> >>>> The Beast for the newcomers, but if we understand the framework,
> >>>> you will find "The Beauty of the OFBiz".
> >>>>
> >>>> - Charles TJ
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Christopher Snow [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >>>> Sent: 13 Nopember 2009 15:18
> >>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz in Canada?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ofbiz is an excellent application development framework.  I think that
> >>>> any
> >>>> efforts that would focus on selling this aspect would attract
> newcomers
> >>>> to
> >>>> the project.  In the past, I have recommended ofbiz as a development
> >>>> framework to a few architects and senior developers that I have worked
> >>>> with.
> >>>>  When they take a look at the ofbiz site, their first reaction is to
> >>>> reject
> >>>> ofbiz as they think it is just another ecommerce application.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know a few of the users on the mailing list would like to see the
> core
> >>>> development framework of ofbiz separated from the other components.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be interesting to know how many of the committers for ofbiz
> >>>> that
> >>>> DON'T use ofbiz primarily for ecommerce.  I think that would be the
> main
> >>>> stumbling block to separating the core development framework.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are some interesting areas being worked on that such as Hans
> >>>> Bakker's BIRT implementation and /Jacques Le/ Roux Axis integration
> for
> >>>> complex types that will give the development framework even more
> power.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

--
Jonatan Soto Aguilera
C/ Comte Borrell, 328 3º4ª
08029 Barcelona
Telf: [phone]
Móvil: [phone]
www.japanflavour.com

[Jacques Le Roux]

This may help
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies

Jacques

From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]>

> When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency
> problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven
> would stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to
> remove components.
>
> Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get used
> makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like "why are
> all those tables created even though they aren't used?"
>
> Abdullah Shaikh wrote:
>> Chris, I guess you mean to simplify the things, but then Ofbiz doesn't force
>> to use all components, user can use only the required components and can
>> ignore the rest.
>>
>> As you said, probably party management, maybe someone else wants to only
>> order management or only ecommerce, so if all the components are there, user
>> can decide which one to use.
>>
>> -Abdullah
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> If a company start using ofbiz for small applications using just the
>>> development framework, they can be very productive within a few weeks.
>>> However, if they have to take on board the whole of ofbiz (i.e. the
>>> components) before they get started, that is a huge task that may put them
>>> off using ofbiz.
>>>
>>> If ofbiz followed the modular approach using maven, companies could start
>>> using ofbiz core (+ probably party management), and then use more and more
>>> of the other components as they get more experienced.
>>>  Charles TJ - SELC Sales Div wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> I am agree with you Chris, the OFBiz is an excellent framework;
>>>> OFBiz is like "The Beauty and The Beast".
>>>> The Beast for the newcomers, but if we understand the framework,
>>>> you will find "The Beauty of the OFBiz".
>>>>
>>>> - Charles TJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Christopher Snow [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: 13 Nopember 2009 15:18
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz in Canada?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ofbiz is an excellent application development framework.  I think that any
>>>> efforts that would focus on selling this aspect would attract newcomers to
>>>> the project.  In the past, I have recommended ofbiz as a development
>>>> framework to a few architects and senior developers that I have worked with.
>>>>  When they take a look at the ofbiz site, their first reaction is to reject
>>>> ofbiz as they think it is just another ecommerce application.
>>>>
>>>> I know a few of the users on the mailing list would like to see the core
>>>> development framework of ofbiz separated from the other components.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to know how many of the committers for ofbiz that
>>>> DON'T use ofbiz primarily for ecommerce.  I think that would be the main
>>>> stumbling block to separating the core development framework.
>>>>
>>>> There are some interesting areas being worked on that such as Hans
>>>> Bakker's BIRT implementation and /Jacques Le/ Roux Axis integration for
>>>> complex types that will give the development framework even more power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>    
>>
>>  
>

[Chris Snow-3]

Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach.

Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting together?

BJ Freeman wrote:

> I had the same complaint at one time.
> I now keep my own version under a different brand name.
> That is about all you can do.
>
>
> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM:
>  
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>    
>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place
>>>> even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused components in
>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components
>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space.  Some of the
>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>      
>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it
>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with
>> lightweight applications like OpenERP.
>>
>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't
>> required.
>>
>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in
>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.
>>
>>
>>    
>
>  

[Chris Snow-3]

Thanks Jacques!

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> This may help
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies 
>
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]>
>> When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency
>> problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven
>> would stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to
>> remove components.
>>
>> Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get
>> used makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like
>> "why are all those tables created even though they aren't used?"
>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> Scott,
>
> I agree that the community changes ofbiz by committing.  And as a non-committer and just and end user, all I have is a voice.
>
> I just found the arguments against the proposal to be unfounded and not in the best interests of the ofbiz project.   For example, the comment about disk space and memory being cheap can't be serious -

OFBiz can run on a low end personal computer, with all its component loaded (even the optional ones)... so I don't see the point of worrying for small companies' hardware budget. For companies with high load/traffic, the money for memory/disk space is irrelevant... by the way, a few hundreds of empty tables just waste an irrelevant amount of space.

> there aren't many examples of monolithic software anymore.

As I already told you, and as you should already know, OFBiz is *not* a monolithic software, the contrary is true.

>
> I think rather than hearing just objections, I would have preferred to have heard a response along the lines of:
>
> "the idea sounds interesting and warrants more investigation - please feel free to put a design or prototype together".

Christopher, it was not my intention to discourage you or discard your idea; I just wanted to warn you that trying to decouple components like for example "order" and "product" would be very difficult; and, to be super clear, it is not difficult because we are not using Maven, but it is difficult because of the real world interdependencies of most of the use cases and business rules.
Of course, feel free to put a design and prototype together, I will be pleased to see it in action and I am sure that others will be as well.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Very few things are ever not an option, but just because someone turns up on the mailing list out of nowhere and proposes something vague doesn't mean that it is suddenly a valid idea that everyone should take seriously.  OFBiz like every other apache project is a meritocracy, the people in "control" are the people who actually get things done for the project.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 13/11/2009, at 11:53 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
>>>> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
>>>> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

On 14/11/2009, at 12:32 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> Scott,
>
> I agree that the community changes ofbiz by committing.  And as a  
> non-committer and just and end user, all I have is a voice.

Time spent in the community and contributions made is what determines  
how loud a voice is.

> I just found the arguments against the proposal to be unfounded and  
> not in the best interests of the ofbiz project.   For example, the  
> comment about disk space and memory being cheap can't be serious -  
> there aren't many examples of monolithic software anymore.

special purpose components can be removed as you please, the  
application components are fairly interdependent and the reality is  
that they could not easily be modularized.  The memory consumption and  
disk space usage of 3 components vs. 6 components is negligible.


> I think rather than hearing just objections, I would have preferred  
> to have heard a response along the lines of:
>
> "the idea sounds interesting and warrants more investigation -  
> please feel free to put a design or prototype together".

I'm sorry you didn't get the response you were looking for, my opinion  
is that the idea doesn't sound all that interesting but you don't need  
my permission to put a design or prototype together.

Regards
Scott

>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Very few things are ever not an option, but just because someone  
>> turns up on the mailing list out of nowhere and proposes something  
>> vague doesn't mean that it is suddenly a valid idea that everyone  
>> should take seriously.  OFBiz like every other apache project is a  
>> meritocracy, the people in "control" are the people who actually  
>> get things done for the project.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 13/11/2009, at 11:53 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that  
>>>>> isn't required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option!  
>>>>> People in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their  
>>>>> business model.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
>>>> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them  
>>>> before attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
>>>> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[rajsaini]

I volunteer myself for creating either ant based or Maven based
distribution if there a willingness and someone ready to commit my
patches. Maven2 may be good option as it can pull the dependencies. Also
Ant and Maven can co exist and people who like Ant can keep using it.

Thanks,

Raj
 
Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi Jonatan,
>
> From: "jonatan soto" <[hidden email]>
> Maven can also solve the problem of the distributable releases,
> centralize a
> repository for the modules and much more. The inclusion of Maven
> affects all
> the life cycle of any project improving the control of all the required
> phases. But i understand that Ofbiz is a very huge and mature project so
> that means it will be very difficult to integrate it.
>
> I agree Maven 2 is great but, you got the point <<very difficult to
> integrate ...>>.
> We have other priorities...
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>> From my point of view, it's very dificult to decide between Ofbiz and
>> other
> ERP. As a new user/developer I see Ofbiz almost focused to ecommerce
> that is
> very convenient for my present ecommerce project but in the other hand
> I see
> Ofbiz dificult to 'sell' if I decide to do some consulting for a
> non-ecommerce companies. Anyway I will bet for Ofbiz because it is an
> Apache
> project, and it makes me more confortable even more when I think how
> Apache
> projects have been changed my developer life.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Abdullah Shaikh <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure, I haven't tried this, but could commenting the not
>> required
>> components from component-load.xml file have helped ?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > When I tried to remove the unwanted components, I can into dependency
>> > problems.  A modular approach to using the components such as maven
>> would
>> > stop the developer having to manually work out dependencies to remove
>> > components.
>> >
>> > Leaving the unwanted components in place even though they don't get
>> used
>> > makes DBA's and support people twitchy, asking questions like "why are
>> all
>> > those tables created even though they aren't used?"
>> >
>> >
>> > Abdullah Shaikh wrote:
>> >
>> >> Chris, I guess you mean to simplify the things, but then Ofbiz
>> doesn't
>> >> force
>> >> to use all components, user can use only the required components
>> and can
>> >> ignore the rest.
>> >>
>> >> As you said, probably party management, maybe someone else wants
>> to only
>> >> order management or only ecommerce, so if all the components are
>> there,
>> >> user
>> >> can decide which one to use.
>> >>
>> >> -Abdullah
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> If a company start using ofbiz for small applications using just the
>> >>> development framework, they can be very productive within a few
>> weeks.
>> >>> However, if they have to take on board the whole of ofbiz (i.e. the
>> >>> components) before they get started, that is a huge task that may
>> put
>> >>> them
>> >>> off using ofbiz.
>> >>>
>> >>> If ofbiz followed the modular approach using maven, companies could
>> start
>> >>> using ofbiz core (+ probably party management), and then use more
>> and
>> >>> more
>> >>> of the other components as they get more experienced.
>> >>>  Charles TJ - SELC Sales Div wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> I am agree with you Chris, the OFBiz is an excellent framework;
>> >>>> OFBiz is like "The Beauty and The Beast".
>> >>>> The Beast for the newcomers, but if we understand the framework,
>> >>>> you will find "The Beauty of the OFBiz".
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Charles TJ
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Christopher Snow [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> >>>> Sent: 13 Nopember 2009 15:18
>> >>>> To: [hidden email]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz in Canada?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ofbiz is an excellent application development framework.  I
>> think that
>> >>>> any
>> >>>> efforts that would focus on selling this aspect would attract
>> newcomers
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> the project.  In the past, I have recommended ofbiz as a
>> development
>> >>>> framework to a few architects and senior developers that I have
>> worked
>> >>>> with.
>> >>>>  When they take a look at the ofbiz site, their first reaction
>> is to
>> >>>> reject
>> >>>> ofbiz as they think it is just another ecommerce application.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I know a few of the users on the mailing list would like to see the
>> core
>> >>>> development framework of ofbiz separated from the other components.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It would be interesting to know how many of the committers for
>> ofbiz
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> DON'T use ofbiz primarily for ecommerce.  I think that would be the
>> main
>> >>>> stumbling block to separating the core development framework.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There are some interesting areas being worked on that such as Hans
>> >>>> Bakker's BIRT implementation and /Jacques Le/ Roux Axis integration
>> for
>> >>>> complex types that will give the development framework even more
>> power.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]>
> Scott,
>
> I agree that the community changes ofbiz by committing.  And as a
> non-committer and just and end user, all I have is a voice.

You can also create Jira and patches... Of course discussing about it before is always better...

>
> I just found the arguments against the proposal to be unfounded and not
> in the best interests of the ofbiz project.   For example, the comment
> about disk space and memory being cheap can't be serious - there aren't
> many examples of monolithic software anymore.

Do we really care about disk size nowadays ? Maybe the bandwith argument though...
For memory if you don't load applications (or remove them) they will not use memory...
 
> I think rather than hearing just objections, I would have preferred to
> have heard a response along the lines of:
>
> "the idea sounds interesting and warrants more investigation - please
> feel free to put a design or prototype together".

Please  feel free to put a design or prototype together :o)
Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your idea, Maven 2 ?

Jacques

> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Very few things are ever not an option, but just because someone turns
>> up on the mailing list out of nowhere and proposes something vague
>> doesn't mean that it is suddenly a valid idea that everyone should
>> take seriously.  OFBiz like every other apache project is a
>> meritocracy, the people in "control" are the people who actually get
>> things done for the project.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 13/11/2009, at 11:53 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't
>>>>> required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People
>>>>> in control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business
>>>>> model.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't get the picture, at all.
>>>> Please read the messages carefully and try to understand them before
>>>> attributing to others concepts that they don't expressed.
>>>> And I am not in control of OFBiz...
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Great, so a modular ofbiz IS an option?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Chris Snow-3]

 From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I quite
like the OSGi plugin concept.  OSGi may help ofbiz in areas like
dependency management and hot upgrades.  Maven 2 would be suitable as
the build tool.

There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though...

> Please  feel free to put a design or prototype together :o)
> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your
> idea, Maven 2 ?
>
> Jacques
>