OFBiz in Canada?

[Adrian Crum]

Christopher Snow wrote:
> 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.

My employer does not use OFBiz for eCommerce. We use the Asset
Maintenance and Work Effort components, with plans to use more of the
back office applications as time and resources permit.

-Adrian

[Jacques Le Roux]

This means having also a BD populated, right ? Else OFBiz is useless.
I can't see any reasons why we did not make it previsously, but I have the intution there is at least one

So far : http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan

All good wills are welcome

Jacques

From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]>

>I personally feel a binary only distribution will be very helpful which
> does not need any of the build time tool chain such a Ant, Maven or SVN
> to pull the sources. It should be like any other standard distribution
> of Tomcat, Geronimo or any other application.
>
> Extending the existing ant scripts or using Maven can help us create a
> binary release. It should be one click process to install (using
> installer) for Windows and single command line like  "tar -xvzf
> apache-ofbiz-x.xx.tar.gz.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raj
>
> Christopher Snow wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Adrian Crum]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>
>> Hi Jacopo,
>>
>> This is my understanding of the conflict in interest:
>>
>> 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches.
>>
>> versus
>>
>> 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security).  Also, the separation of Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules.
>
> Are you saying that the I am a supporter of #1? No, this is not true, and this is not what OFBiz is. Again, I think that you don't read with enough attention the emails or that you don't think enough before sending your reply. I would suggest you to spend more time studying instead of throwing out wrong and misleading assertions. What you are saying is simply not real.
>
> Jacopo

It seems to me he's formed an inaccurate picture of OFBiz in his head,
and he's trying to convince everyone it is true.

I don't know where the idea that OFBiz is not modular came from. OFBiz
IS modular. And like any other modular architecture, some modules depend
on other modules.

This conversation is going nowhere. Let's just move on.

-Adrian

[rajsaini]

I think you mean DB right? Yes, indeed that is needed. May be some thing
like ofbizsetup component can be run as a default application first time
and have a option to load the demo data, seed or setup specific data.

Thanks,

Raj

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> This means having also a BD populated, right ? Else OFBiz is useless.
> I can't see any reasons why we did not make it previsously, but I have
> the intution there is at least one
>
> So far : http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>
> All good wills are welcome
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]>
>> I personally feel a binary only distribution will be very helpful
>> which does not need any of the build time tool chain such a Ant,
>> Maven or SVN to pull the sources. It should be like any other
>> standard distribution of Tomcat, Geronimo or any other application.
>>
>> Extending the existing ant scripts or using Maven can help us create
>> a binary release. It should be one click process to install (using
>> installer) for Windows and single command line like  "tar -xvzf
>> apache-ofbiz-x.xx.tar.gz.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Raj
>>
>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I have some clients who use the POS alone

Jacques

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> Christopher Snow wrote:
>> 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.
>
> My employer does not use OFBiz for eCommerce. We use the Asset
> Maintenance and Work Effort components, with plans to use more of the
> back office applications as time and resources permit.
>
> -Adrian
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

> Christopher Snow wrote:
>> 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.
>

Most of our clients makes use of several different OFBiz ERP/backend applications, some of them together with a public ecommerce site, some without it.

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Sorry for the top post :/

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

>I have some clients who use the POS alone
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> My employer does not use OFBiz for eCommerce. We use the Asset
>> Maintenance and Work Effort components, with plans to use more of the
>> back office applications as time and resources permit.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>

[c.schinzer]

Hi all,
in case you waited for my 0.02 EUR :

I tend to agree with Jacques: OFBiz is a ERP framework (with loads of
ecommerce capabilites, I agree, but think of all the queries 1-2 months ago
on this list about configuring for manufacturing workflow etc.)

I do miss more comments and advancement in the accounting area, but i am
working on that myself.

I would be very much in favour of a bi-annual release schedule, say a spring
and an autumn release. (I think that's not a surprise to anyone). And I
think that's feasible, wouldn't it?

However, as stated a couple of times here, there are some preparatory steps
/ functions not being fulfilled right now (at least not obviously) which I
think any IT project - and similarly an open source project -- will need to
fulfill if it takes it's responsibilities more seriously:

   - Scope Management -- could be introduced by e.g. classifying bugs and
   feature requests from JIRA
   - Release maintenance should focus on bugs, not features
   - Major releases should focus on new functionality; if all feature
   requests being handed in during a 6 months period are too heavy: start
   splitting into the component sets and only put e.g. framework and
   applications under release management and let special-purpose develop it's
   own way. There could be a way to treat specialpurpose applications as
   sub-projects (as e.g. Ant does)

That is the reason why I asked for statistics on JIRA the other day. In
order to see whether these splits would make sense. I think, though, similar
to other ASF projects, it's mainly up to the committers, more precisely the
PMC members, to manifest how they want to move forward.

Regards


Carsten


2009/11/13 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>

> Here is the release plan so far
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]>
>
>  Hi Jacopo,
>>
>> This is my understanding of the conflict in interest:
>>
>> 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed on
>> top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches.
>>
>> versus
>>
>> 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional
>> releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security).  Also, the separation of
>> Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hi Chris:
>>>>
>>>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time
>>>> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Uh... I am missing your point now: what are the competing interests that
>>> you are mentioning? I don't see any competing interest in this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>  This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look
>>>> what that spawned :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, it could become the Linux equivalent for the OFBiz world... or it
>>> could become one of the many thousands of forks (the 99%) in the history of
>>> software projects that just are ignored.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>  Ruth
>>>>
>>>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--

Best

Carsten Schinzer

Waisenhausstr. 53a
80637 München
Germany

[Chris Snow-3]

Adrian Crum wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> This is my understanding of the conflict in interest:
>>>
>>> 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is
>>> developed on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and
>>> patches.
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>> 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has
>>> professional releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security).  Also,
>>> the separation of Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform
>>> with add on ERP modules.
>>
>> Are you saying that the I am a supporter of #1? No, this is not true,
>> and this is not what OFBiz is. Again, I think that you don't read
>> with enough attention the emails or that you don't think enough
>> before sending your reply. I would suggest you to spend more time
>> studying instead of throwing out wrong and misleading assertions.
>> What you are saying is simply not real.
>>
>> Jacopo
>
> It seems to me he's formed an inaccurate picture of OFBiz in his head,
> and he's trying to convince everyone it is true.
>
> I don't know where the idea that OFBiz is not modular came from. OFBiz
> IS modular. And like any other modular architecture, some modules
> depend on other modules.
>
> This conversation is going nowhere. Let's just move on.
>
> -Adrian

Hi Adrian,

I agree - time to move on.  Sorry to everyone that I have offended today.

Cheers,

Chris

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Carsten Schinzer" <[hidden email]>
[snip]
>I would be very much in favour of a bi-annual release schedule, say a spring
>and an autumn release. (I think that's not a surprise to anyone). And I
>think that's feasible, wouldn't it?

Actually OFBiz is big, and it's take time to backport to 2+ releases for each bugs...
OFBiz is not an Apache project like the other. I don't know how Compiere and its forks are handling that BTW ?

>However, as stated a couple of times here, there are some preparatory steps
>/ functions not being fulfilled right now (at least not obviously) which I
>think any IT project - and similarly an open source project -- will need to
>fulfill if it takes it's responsibilities more seriously:
>
>   - Scope Management -- could be introduced by e.g. classifying bugs and
>   feature requests from JIRA

+1, there is already some means in Jira : voting, by compoment, issues status, etc.
What would you suggest further ?

>   - Release maintenance should focus on bugs, not features

That's what we do already

>   - Major releases should focus on new functionality; if all feature

It's trunk in OFBiz :D

>   requests being handed in during a 6 months period are too heavy: start
>   splitting into the component sets and only put e.g. framework and
>   applications under release management and let special-purpose develop it's
>   own way. There could be a way to treat specialpurpose applications as
>   sub-projects (as e.g. Ant does)

More things to deal with, I'm afraid :/

>That is the reason why I asked for statistics on JIRA the other day. In
>order to see whether these splits would make sense. I think, though, similar
>to other ASF projects, it's mainly up to the committers, more precisely the
>PMC members, to manifest how they want to move forward.

Have we enough human ressources to do that, I'm not sure. It's hard to organize a project like OFBiz not only because it's big but
mostly because it's community driven...
Despite of that, I'm amazed every day...

Jacques

>
>Regards
>
>
>Carsten
>

[Chuck]

This issue is beyond dead. Can we please move on?

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> This is my understanding of the conflict in interest:
>>>
>>> 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed
>>> on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches.
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>> 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional
>>> releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security).  Also, the separation of
>>> Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules.
>>
>> Are you saying that the I am a supporter of #1? No, this is not true, and
>> this is not what OFBiz is. Again, I think that you don't read with enough
>> attention the emails or that you don't think enough before sending your
>> reply. I would suggest you to spend more time studying instead of throwing
>> out wrong and misleading assertions. What you are saying is simply not real.
>>
>> Jacopo
>
> It seems to me he's formed an inaccurate picture of OFBiz in his head, and
> he's trying to convince everyone it is true.
>
> I don't know where the idea that OFBiz is not modular came from. OFBiz IS
> modular. And like any other modular architecture, some modules depend on
> other modules.
>
> This conversation is going nowhere. Let's just move on.
>
> -Adrian
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Anyone can certainly create a forked project at any time. Some have  
even done so, with varying levels of success. BTW, if you look at the  
actual experiences of projects that have forked from OFBiz, be careful  
to recognize what is marketing material intended to attract users, and  
what represents actual happenings in the projects.

In any case, I hope not to beat a dead horse... but it sounds like  
this proposal is for those who are not currently contributing much to  
OFBiz and who are not happy with how certain things are to split off  
and work on what they think is important... plus take on everything  
else that the current OFBiz community does.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with others in the community so that you  
can focus on contributing in areas that you think are most important?  
If anyone doesn't think that's easier, then by all means try the  
approach you think is easier, and just commit to revisiting the  
question in 2-3 years after you've had a chance to really get into it.

If after reading this you (whoever is reading this) is still  
interested in my opinion, here is a blog post from a while back that I  
think is directly relevant:

http://osofbiz.blogspot.com/2008/01/glass-cathedrals-and-community-versus.html

-David


On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Michael,
>
> why do you think it is time for a fork? It seems to me a crazy  
> conversation...
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
>
>> hi Ruth,
>>
>> I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But  
>> before that,
>> maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework,  
>> BI, etc.
>> Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be
>> easier.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Michael Xu (xudong)
>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86)  
>> 135 0135
>> 9807 | Fax: [phone]
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman  
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris:
>>>
>>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it  
>>> is time
>>> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests  
>>> here. This
>>> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And  
>>> look what
>>> that spawned :-)
>>>
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Carsten,

Thank you for a well thought out email, and for the specific  
recommendations you included. Without those sorts of things discussion  
isn't really possible.

That said, I think in general you confusing a centrally planned and  
manage organization with an all volunteer community. I'll try to be  
more specific inline...

Before getting into the details, please forgive me if what I write is  
too terse. This misunderstand is extremely common and is frequently  
enough discussed that I've written blog posts on the topics over the  
years. Just keep in mind that there is no "boss" around here, and the  
community is in charge. Because of that the only thing that matters is  
strengthening the community because once there is a community then the  
community can do things. If there is no community, then there is no  
one to do things... and with no boss handing out paychecks or  
something of the sort there is no way to get people involved.

If you think I'm wrong as you read through this, then by all means  
propose other ways of getting people to do things!


On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Carsten Schinzer wrote:

> Hi all,
> in case you waited for my 0.02 EUR :
>
> I tend to agree with Jacques: OFBiz is a ERP framework (with loads of
> ecommerce capabilites, I agree, but think of all the queries 1-2  
> months ago
> on this list about configuring for manufacturing workflow etc.)
>
> I do miss more comments and advancement in the accounting area, but  
> i am
> working on that myself.

That's great. What tends to happen is that as people start working on  
an area they will find that others reciprocate and collaborate back  
with them, leading to active development and use of a part of the  
project. For more on this concept:

http://osofbiz.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-source-community-collaboration.html

> I would be very much in favour of a bi-annual release schedule, say  
> a spring
> and an autumn release. (I think that's not a surprise to anyone).  
> And I
> think that's feasible, wouldn't it?

More frequent releases are certainly possible, but what would you like  
to have happen as a result of this, and what do you think will  
actually happen based on what has happened with the current release  
branches?

I can't answer the first question, and would be interested in your  
answer. I can take a stab at the second question:

What seems to be happening with the release branches is that there  
simply aren't enough people interested in maintaining them to actually  
get bug fixes contributed to the release branch. This has happened  
more with 09.04 that with 4.0, but we're still in a situation where  
the majority of the fixes that go into 09.04 are simply back-ports  
from the trunk (that are sometimes wrongly assumed to be applicable to  
the branch).

In order for a branch to be useful as a tool for stabilization it  
needs a number of users who are also able to, and interested in,  
fixing bugs in the branch and contributing them. In other words, a  
community with healthy collaboration needs to form around the branch,  
otherwise it won't really happen.

A community willing to collaborate, and some sort of motivation to  
contribute, is the most important thing, and in fact is the main  
priority to get things to happen because once that is in place the  
actual bug fixes or whatever will naturally flow. If that doesn't  
happen, then no bug fixes (or very few) will ever happen.

In addition to the blog posting above, this one about community versus  
code might be helpful:

http://osofbiz.blogspot.com/2008/01/glass-cathedrals-and-community-versus.html

> However, as stated a couple of times here, there are some  
> preparatory steps
> / functions not being fulfilled right now (at least not obviously)  
> which I
> think any IT project - and similarly an open source project -- will  
> need to
> fulfill if it takes it's responsibilities more seriously:
>
>   - Scope Management -- could be introduced by e.g. classifying bugs  
> and
>   feature requests from JIRA
>   - Release maintenance should focus on bugs, not features
>   - Major releases should focus on new functionality; if all feature
>   requests being handed in during a 6 months period are too heavy:  
> start
>   splitting into the component sets and only put e.g. framework and
>   applications under release management and let special-purpose  
> develop it's
>   own way. There could be a way to treat specialpurpose applications  
> as
>   sub-projects (as e.g. Ant does)

As Jacques mentioned some of these are very much already handled in  
OFBiz. We have things setup so that people interested in #2 (a release  
branch) can form a community around a release and make those bug fixes  
happen, and so that people interested in #3 (the trunk) can contribute  
and collaborate as they will there.

How do we get people to do these things? Well, there is no top-down  
management... more on that below.

> That is the reason why I asked for statistics on JIRA the other day.  
> In
> order to see whether these splits would make sense. I think, though,  
> similar
> to other ASF projects, it's mainly up to the committers, more  
> precisely the
> PMC members, to manifest how they want to move forward.

This is the core of the confusion. The PMC does NOT drive the  
direction of the project, we simply moderate what happens and  
facilitate collaboration as people demonstrate their desire and  
ability to do so. All the PMC does is vote on who to invite as  
committers and who to invite to join the PMC, vote on releases and  
other "official" actions, and on occasion vote on conflicts that can't  
seem to be resolved any other way (I don't think this has ever  
happened, BTW).

To take this one step further... what would it look like if the PMC  
did drive the direction of the project? How would the PMC do so? All  
the PMC could do is prevent people from doing things since there is no  
incentive or force that the PMC can apply to get people to do things.  
Would you want to participate in a project where you had to get  
permission from the PMC in order to work on something, or where you  
could only work on the things the PMC has designated? I'm not sure  
what that would do to the project, but I can say that I wouldn't be  
interested in being involved with such a project...

Anyway, thanks again for your comments and I'd be interested in  
hearing about your thoughts as you read this, whether you agree or not.

-David

> 2009/11/13 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>
>> Here is the release plan so far
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> This is my understanding of the conflict in interest:
>>>
>>> 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is  
>>> developed on
>>> top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches.
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>> 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has  
>>> professional
>>> releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security).  Also, the  
>>> separation of
>>> Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP  
>>> modules.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it  
>>>>> is time
>>>>> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests  
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Uh... I am missing your point now: what are the competing  
>>>> interests that
>>>> you are mentioning? I don't see any competing interest in this  
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No?  
>>>> And look
>>>>> what that spawned :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it could become the Linux equivalent for the OFBiz world...  
>>>> or it
>>>> could become one of the many thousands of forks (the 99%) in the  
>>>> history of
>>>> software projects that just are ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ruth
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Best
>
> Carsten Schinzer
>
> Waisenhausstr. 53a
> 80637 München
> Germany

[Erwan de FERRIERES-3]

Le 13/11/2009 08:42, jonatan soto a écrit :
> It would be a good idea a full integration of Maven2 on Ofbiz? it is already
> considered/done? I think it may be helpful to control the release mechanism
> and also gives the ability to separate everything in modules as Harmet
> said.
> For example, Ofbiz core would be the main module and all the compoments will
> depend of it so in order to activate/deactivate components it will be very
> easy, just changing the main POM should be enough.
> I've only seen one person who is using his own repository of release 9.04,
> but probably it is a good idea to have ofbiz on a public repository.

At Nereide, we are developping an add-on manager, which gives the
possibility to extend OFBiz with addons. It is made to add quickly
features to an OFBiz instance. The goal is also to have strong addons,
which are tested, documented and which can be installed on any OFBiz
revision.
You can found more on this at this address : http://neogia.org/OFBiz_add-on

Regards,

--
Erwan

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

>
>
> Le 13/11/2009 08:42, jonatan soto a écrit :
>> It would be a good idea a full integration of Maven2 on Ofbiz? it is already
>> considered/done? I think it may be helpful to control the release mechanism
>> and also gives the ability to separate everything in modules as Harmet
>> said.
>> For example, Ofbiz core would be the main module and all the compoments will
>> depend of it so in order to activate/deactivate components it will be very
>> easy, just changing the main POM should be enough.
>> I've only seen one person who is using his own repository of release 9.04,
>> but probably it is a good idea to have ofbiz on a public repository.
>
> At Nereide, we are developping an add-on manager, which gives the possibility to extend OFBiz with addons. It is made to add quickly features to an OFBiz instance. The goal is also to have strong addons, which are tested, documented and which can be installed on any OFBiz revision.
> You can found more on this at this address : http://neogia.org/OFBiz_add-on
>

Interesting. How are add-ons different from OFBiz components?

Cheers,

Jacopo

> Regards,
>
> --
> Erwan

[Erwan de FERRIERES-3]

Le 22/11/2009 11:59, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

>
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> At Nereide, we are developping an add-on manager, which gives the possibility to extend OFBiz with addons. It is made to add quickly features to an OFBiz instance. The goal is also to have strong addons, which are tested, documented and which can be installed on any OFBiz revision.
>> You can found more on this at this address : http://neogia.org/OFBiz_add-on
>>
>
> Interesting. How are add-ons different from OFBiz components?

Addons are mostly light modifications of OFBiz, but can be a new
component as well. These are modifications that are not / won't /
waiting to be integrated in the trunk.

One of the goals here is to download the trunk, apply addons and then
have an OFBiz packaged. Addons are managing dependencies, and then
download all the other addons needed by it.

Cheers,


--
Erwan

[Tim Ruppert]

This seems like a great improvement Erwan - is this something that  
will be making it's way into OFBiz proper or something you guys are  
working on just in the derivative?  No stress, just wondering as it  
seems like it has great potential.

Cheers,
Ruppert
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Nov 22, 2009, at 4:21 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

>
>
> Le 22/11/2009 11:59, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At Nereide, we are developping an add-on manager, which gives the  
>>> possibility to extend OFBiz with addons. It is made to add quickly  
>>> features to an OFBiz instance. The goal is also to have strong  
>>> addons, which are tested, documented and which can be installed on  
>>> any OFBiz revision.
>>> You can found more on this at this address : http://neogia.org/OFBiz_add-on
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. How are add-ons different from OFBiz components?
> Addons are mostly light modifications of OFBiz, but can be a new  
> component as well. These are modifications that are not / won't /  
> waiting to be integrated in the trunk.
>
> One of the goals here is to download the trunk, apply addons and  
> then have an OFBiz packaged. Addons are managing dependencies, and  
> then download all the other addons needed by it.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Erwan

[Erwan de FERRIERES-3]

Le 23/11/2009 05:51, Tim Ruppert a écrit :
> This seems like a great improvement Erwan - is this something that will
> be making it's way into OFBiz proper or something you guys are working
> on just in the derivative? No stress, just wondering as it seems like it
> has great potential.
Thanks ! We are also expecting a lot from this new feature.
For the moment, it is still not yet strong enough to be given to the
communauty, but be sure that this is what is goung to be done.
The development we are doing is made under the Apache2 license, so there
won't be any problem to use it.

Cheers,

--
Erwan

[Tim Ruppert]

Awesome - great news Erwan and looking forward to it.

Cheers,
Ruppert
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Nov 23, 2009, at 1:30 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

>
>
> Le 23/11/2009 05:51, Tim Ruppert a écrit :
>> This seems like a great improvement Erwan - is this something that  
>> will
>> be making it's way into OFBiz proper or something you guys are  
>> working
>> on just in the derivative? No stress, just wondering as it seems  
>> like it
>> has great potential.
> Thanks ! We are also expecting a lot from this new feature.
> For the moment, it is still not yet strong enough to be given to the  
> communauty, but be sure that this is what is goung to be done.
> The development we are doing is made under the Apache2 license, so  
> there won't be any problem to use it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Erwan