OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[flj]

IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some experience  
which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted, I cannot.  
Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct or delete  
them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the documentation at the  
beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a  
closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.

--
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

[Leon Torres-2]

I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
mass necessary to make such a thing work.

For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:

http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php

Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.

- Leon


Florin Jurcovici wrote:

> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>
> --Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew Sykes wrote:
> As with everything OfBiz, progress is dictated by demand. With adoptees
> coming from such varied backgrounds and with such disparate
> requirements. It would be hard to create such a roadmap that would be
> relevant to all.
>  

Absolutely true. But imo current adoptees mostly seem to fit into a
similar mould. Rocket scientists with high-end clients and very
idiosyncratic niches to fulfil. I'm not knocking that. I count myself as
one of that breed. But there is a lowest common denominator which
everybody seems determined to ignore. Some maps you have to be a rocket
scientist to read. But road maps are accessible to everyone. I don't see
a problem in creating such a thing, providing we  start off with an
attitude which - as I think Leo Szilard once said - "Assumes infinite
ignorance and unlimited intelligence."

That's why I'm determined to play the ignoramus around here. Assuming I
do have the intelligence to crack the code if I wanted to, why should I?
There are plenty of others who are better suited than I. I just want to
climb in, turn the key and get out on the road. Why should the only way
forward be for me to have to learn how to reinvent the wheel?

> Given that problem the obvious solution is to create free-standing
> documents that allow people the entry point of their choice.
>  

Absolutely true for all free-thinking souls who like to think outside
the box. But, unfortunately, this is a very small minority. There's a
body of psychological research that shows that most people can only cope
with 7 choices in one go. That's why, for a long time, telephone numbers
were limited to just 7 digits. Faced with more choices than that,  most
people just roll-over and give-up. Supermarkets apparently work on this
principle. Offer more than 7 choices and punters don't know what to do.
Stick a big sign in the middle saying this is the way to go and most
will follow that.

> The key to success isn't where you enter, or how you progress, but
> rather that you do it in a thorough manner.

That's crucial for any engineer. But exactly not what most everybody
else can deal with. Why else are they prepared to pay us so well? My
mother would take a dozen balls of wool and work thoroughly night after
night to produce the most beautiful sweaters. Now, the supermarket shelf
is as far as most are prepared to go. And only then, if they can see
less than 7 in one go :-\

>  So take a part of the code
> that is of interest to you (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and
> then work through artifact by artifact making sure you read all the
> free-standing documents you can lay your hands on as you go of course!
>  

That's absolutely crucial. You do need relevance to stay motivated. If I
have to spend 3 months studying textbooks before I can fill in my VAT
returns how relevant is that? Especially when I can install entry-level
Intuit, Sage or Microsoft to do it for me OOB in just a few clicks for
less than the cost of a decent restaurant meal for 2!

> I hope that helps...
>  

I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.

Hope that's OK with you too :)

Ian

> - Andrew (Sykes)
>
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:34 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>  
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
>>> out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
>>> too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
>>> lack of documentation available (even given the sites
>>> linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
>>> thousands of mailing list posts available and the
>>> number of video tutorials available).  But you start
>>> playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
>>> You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
>>> you look back and think "how can I make the learning
>>> curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
>>> was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
>>> can add to those websites that could make it any
>>> clearer.
>>>      
>> A clear roadmap would be most useful so that the essential stuff gets read
>> first. And yes, there are already How to documents, architecture documents,
>> but there is too much to read plus every document starts with a brief resume
>> of OFBiz rather than getting down to the business at hand. Basically it
>> appears that every document has been written to stand alone and therefore
>> feels the need to fill in the back ground on OFBiz. I haven't yet read a
>> great deal of the available documentation, but there is a trend there.
>>
>> Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended to help.
>> I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in that there
>> tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither reference nor
>> tutorial. And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will try to
>> document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out a style
>> and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this can be
>> difficult in the open source environment.
>>
>> I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the wiki is
>> restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the wiki, users
>> should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need for further
>> detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the contents in
>> black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you are all
>> willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew Ballantine.
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/636 - Release Date: 18/01/2007
>> 04:00
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
>> *****************************************************************
>>    

[Ian McNulty]

Florin Jurcovici wrote:

> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally
> and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline
> of the documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to
> fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>
> --Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>

I'm inclined to agree. They can't be very psychic can they?

Er... Only joking :) Seriously though... I've had one web site going for
more than 4 years now where you don't have to log in to post any kind of
pictures and text you  like with just one click. So far, only one person
has managed to get that far. And what they posted was more funny that
threatening, and easy to delete. No doubt now I've tempted fate by
posting this here some bright spark will track it down and prove me
wrong. But, aside from that, my feeling would be to stay open, look on
the bright side and keep the shutters down until you have reason not to.
But I wouldn't want that to be a deal breaker. If Andrew thinks that's
the way to go then that would be OK with me.

[Ian McNulty]

Leon,

Good to hear.

Those tutorials are actually where I learnt most about OFBiz.
Beautifully laid out. I can see the work you've put in.

But there are a lot of things missing which I personally would need to know.

If you thing a Wiki is the way to solve that problem, then I'm with you
all the way.

Ian



Leon Torres wrote:

> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz
> wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly
> attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>
> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about
> specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>
> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far easier
> to expand on them.
>
> - Leon
>
>
> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>
>> --Florin Jurcovici
>> ------------------
>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>
>
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL

t: [phone]
e: [hidden email]
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on [phone]

This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================

[Jacques Le Roux]

Leon, all,

There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...

It's up to you folks...

For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.

BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
Business Project Wiki" is wide open)

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>
> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>
> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>
> - Leon
>
>
> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> > IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> > experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
> > I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
> > or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
> > documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
> > pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
> >
> > --Florin Jurcovici
> > ------------------
> > Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >

[cjhowe]

Thanks Jacques,

It took every ounce of self restraint I had to not
reply redundantly. :-)


--- Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Leon, all,
>
> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create
> your login :
>
http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ.
> I
> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some
> parts, open for others...
>
> It's up to you folks...
>
> For instance
>
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
> might be a good entry point for
>
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.

>
> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put
> a front page to explain how it works (for instance
> that the "The Open For
> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business
> accounting package?
>
>
> > I also believe it would be worthwhile to
> experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
> > the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> certainly attain the critical
> > mass necessary to make such a thing work.
> >
> > For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
> in .txt format about specific
> > tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >
> >
>

http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php

> >
> > Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
> because it takes an investment in
> > time to read, verify, and update the documents on
> our end.  If they were in the
> > form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to
> expand on them.
> >
> > - Leon
> >
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> > > IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
> if I had some
> > > experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
> is closed or restricted,
> > > I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> occasionally and correct
> > > or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an
> outline of the
> > > documentation at the beginning then let whoever
> is willing to fill the
> > > pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not
> the way to go.
> > >
> > > --Florin Jurcovici
> > > ------------------
> > > Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> > >
>
>

[Andrew Sykes]

Ian,

On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:59 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
> balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
> discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.

Well, I like to think of it as a dialectic process, but sure, it's the
way to go!
--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

Good advice. Much appreciated. Will give it a go and let you know how I
get on.

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Ian,
>
> Java is a beast! Minilang is a simple business logic language.
>
> The average java book will run into hundreds of pages, while minilang
> docs can be read in an hour or two.
>
> Jonathon is using java because it is familiar to him, if you're not
> familiar with java, don't break your back by insisting on using that as
> your entry point to OfBiz.
>
> It's like trying to enter a building via the window on the third floor
> because that's the way the window cleaner guy told you to go ;-)
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:46 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> Jonathon,
>>
>> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me OFbiz
>> rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
>>
>> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>
>> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid
>> possible disappointment further down the line.
>>
>> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and have
>> had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to php. But
>> it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, so OOP and
>> Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, Minilang, or
>> Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, will always be
>> miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious danger of being more
>> of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting reading Bruce Eckel's
>> Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe there just aren't enough
>> years left to get up to speed on all this?
>>
>> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on where
>> I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
>>
>>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is no
>> shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip down the
>> engine and stick it back together again working better than ever, before
>> I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, depending on what side
>> of the pond you're on. :)
>>
>> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to have
>> people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door locks when
>> you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But I've also
>> been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can be to have
>> someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the bonnet, polish
>> the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, after you've done
>> your bit and just need to go home to bed.
>>
>> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm better
>> off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on what the
>> average driver needs to see.
>>
>> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for
>> SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on osCommerce
>> and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But
>> the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a successful
>> website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house accounting and
>> POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
>>
>> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly
>> discuss here.
>>
>> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K
>> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. Store
>> owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the learning
>> curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the reliability of
>> the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After a while they
>> start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, which is where
>> the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is something they will not
>> even contemplate until they are confident they have a solid vehicle that
>> will take them reliably from A to B.
>>
>> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many levels
>> of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to those who
>> don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer themselves. And this is
>> only the tip of the iceberg. For every one member on these forums there
>> are 9 others who can't even handle the log in and just want somebody to
>> take care of it all for them.
>>
>> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
>> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
>> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is that a
>> wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of
>> mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>
>> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>    
>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>
>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting
>>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen
>>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said,
>>> Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>
>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus
>>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end
>>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets
>>> to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally
>>> better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely
>>> on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't
>>> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>
>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java
>>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>>
>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in
>>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java.
>>> Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>>
>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and
>>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive,
>>> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more
>>> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to
>>> completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and
>>> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not an
>>> impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>
>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>
>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is
>>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and
>>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to
>>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>
>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon),
>>>> let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working
>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in
>>>>> the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets
>>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from
>>>>> running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't
>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving
>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should
>>>>> be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of
>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the
>>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who
>>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough
>>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver
>>>>> handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of
>>>>> view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of
>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor
>>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to
>>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to
>>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How
>>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator
>>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the
>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf
>>>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who
>>>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an
>>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which
>>>>> needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the
>>>>> need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is
>>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains
>>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite.
>>>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first
>>>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't
>>>>> never coming back for more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is
>>>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business
>>>>> suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help
>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent
>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of
>>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting
>>>>> us to Mars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of
>>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model
>>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves
>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more
>>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps
>>>>>> in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for some
>>>>>> fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the
>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce
>>>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also
>>>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to
>>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute
>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how
>>>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see
>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs.
>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of
>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do
>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack
>>>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break
>>>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's
>>>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a
>>>>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I
>>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're
>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're
>>>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at
>>>>>> weeks before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that
>>>>>> take time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of
>>>>>> fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into
>>>>>> OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month.
>>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for
>>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is
>>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special
>>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you
>>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages
>>>>>>> for use
>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how
>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it
>>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i
>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download,
>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>          
>>>>        
>>>
>>>      

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL

t: [phone]
e: [hidden email]
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on [phone]

This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================

[Ian McNulty]

Jonathon,

Got to say that I like where you're coming from here. Particularly your
attitude to complaints. I'm thinking Toyota production system and the
Honda ads. here - "Hate Something, Change Something, Make Something Better."

>
> > Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>
> Sure. We'll let each other know where we need help.
>

That would be great. Problem is that I need help on so many areas of
OFBiz, it's difficult to know where to start.

You sound much too busy at the moment to get into such things, so
probably best left till the heat is off. I haven't even figured out if
there is a PM system on this mailing list. How best can we get in touch?

>
> I'm not exactly a programmer myself, Ian. Do I know all of Java?
> Probably just 1% (well, ok, I did know 99% once).

Aha. There you go. I've forgotten most of what I knew too. But I never
knew any Java. So I'm trying to run from a completely cold start.

> If I do happen to score well, it's because I worked on
> reverse-engineering my memory faculties, not the programming topic at
> hand. I went through school studying my learning faculties rather than
> the topics at hand.

This reverse-engineering thing sounds fascinating. Not sure what that is
exactly. Do you mean looking at the effect and trying to figure out the
cause?

> Yeah, shame on me. But you can say the same of many Singaporeans!
> (Dispassionate, robotic, relentless bunch of soulless creatures.)

Yeah. I've heard such things said. But I never believe anything I see on
TV :)

>
> What I'm saying is you, given your prior engineering experience plus
> some sense of adventure and clever experimentation, can more than pick
> up any concepts or tools you need to work OFBiz. Probably more than I
> can. I'm just a simple reverse-engineer (problem-solver in general),
> not a real engineer. I'm also one of those "average weekend drivers",
> not just someone in overalls. Just focus on "whatever is relevant to
> you at the moment", and you'll get started quick. I can try to show
> you how if you'd like. Try my methods of picking up OFBiz or anything
> in general. Won't hurt (I think). Take Andrew Sykes' advice to Andrew
> Ballantine: "take a part of the code that is of interest to you
> (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and then work through
> artifact by artifact".

I doubt I could pick it up faster than you. But nice of you to say so
anyway. Words of encouragement are always appreciated  :)

That aside, I guess my attitude has always been pretty much as you
describe. The only computer language learned formally - Algol - was out
of date before I'd finished reading the manual. From then on I decided
not to worry about how much I understood. Just grab what I could, hack
it together and knock any bits that didn't fit into shape. Just get the
thing running. By any means necessary.

But there's something different about OFBiz that made me want to try a
completely different tack.

Hard to describe what that is exactly.

I guess the first thing would have to be the concept and the framework.
 From what I can see, this isn't just another hack job. It's been so
beautifully designed from the ground up. A real leap forward and a world
beater if I ever saw one. I could be wrong. But I keep thinking that the
potential is just awesome!

The second thing would be how easy it was to get started, but how
difficult to get past first gear. I've never encountered anything like
that before. I manage to pin one problem down to something I think I can
handle, then suddenly another bigger one pops up somewhere else. And yet
none of this shakes my confidence in the original design. Very curious!!!

I guess my conclusion from all this is that the details are all sortable
in one way or another, but the main thing that seems to be missing from
the picture is the long view. OK, so all the bits seem to be roughly in
place. But step back and see what it looks like on the garage
forecourt.  There are some pretty obvious, straightforward, superficial
red-flags that nobody seems too concerned about sorting.

How could that be, unless everybody was so busy concentrating on the
details of the trees that nobody had time to step back and look at the
general outline of the forest?

That's all that seems to be missing from this project, and the only real
contribution I thought I might be able to make:

Assume infinite ignorance and unlimited intelligence. Supposing I take
off my overalls and put on my business suit? Approach this thing as
someone who doesn't want to know how to use a spanner, just how to drive
it to work. What obstacles are standing in my way? Stop trying to hop
over obstacles, the way most of us usually do. Adopt a zero tolerance
policy. Don't move on until the problem is isolated, pinned down, boxed
up, and written down in the handbook.

As I've said before. The last thing the guys in the workshop want to see
is a moron standing on the forecourt complaining he can't open the door.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it :)

Having said that, I think this group has been much more patient than any
other I have encountered to date. But I don't want to push it much further.

I guess what I'd like to see is a team of engineers who are prepared to
take up that kind of challenge. What does the average driver need to get
on the road. What can we do to remove the obstacles in his way.

If anybody is interested in working in that direction, that's certainly
the way I'd like to go.

But I do think we need another forum for doing this, so we don't get in
the way of the guys who are working on building an even better mousetrap
than what's already there.

Exactly what that forum could be is something I'm still not clear about.
All ideas greatly appreciated.

>
> I believe that you'll be customizing OFBiz within a day of research,
> just like I did. Just like many folks here did, I believe.
>
> Join us! (or *hynotically* "join... us... join... us..."). Heh.

I appreciate your encouragement and think you're probably right.

But I really do believe that somebody has to step back from all this and
play the average driver on the forecourt.

I believe this is the most useful thing I can do at the moment and am
determined to try and keep doing it until somebody chucks a spanner in
my works :)

>
> Well, my boss (and previous bosses) will probably tell you I can be
> irritating when I kept trying to make a software engineer out of him.
> But I'm seriously telling you that OFBiz is a solid framework you can
> easily build on/with. No kidding.

I have absolutely no doubt about that too.
>
> We just need to get the documentation and user manuals in place...

Absolutely my opinion too.

>
> That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love
> complainers! That's the best way I'll know to fix something.

Great. So how do we begin?

>
> > For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for
> > SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on
> osCommerce and Zen
> > Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But the
> problem
> > they are all now facing is, now they have a successful website, how
> do they
> > integrate the back end with in-house accounting and POS? Which is how I
> > discovered OFbiz in the first place.
>
> Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece
> of pie, we can help each other. But you might have to go through my
> boss first.

OK. So what do I have to do? Flying out to Singapore is not an option
for me at the moment. What would your boss need me to do?

>
> > I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
> > why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
> > glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is
> that a
> > wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of
> > mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>
> We'll need a really solid effort to do all that, multi-tiered forums
> and all. Lots of work in forum moderation (but sure, we can recruit
> solid volunteers to help in every stratum). And then OFBiz might
> become like MySQL. Or sellout eventually like Compiere?

I suspect that once the framework of some kind of open forum was
established, there would be no end of volunteers to moderate it.

The problem with all such forums I've seen is the level of contact with
the core developers.

In Zen Cart for instance, the core team seem to be online all the time
and must be worked half to death trying to keep on top of it all. I
can't believe that one day they aren't just going to give up and walk
away. So this would not be a great way to go.

On the other hand, on Ubuntu, there seems to be no route through to the
developers at all. So big issues are left hanging for months unresolved.

The trick would be to have some kind of filtering process, where easily
solved dummy problems are dealt with by those with base-level skills,
and really difficult ones can be referred upwards for the A-team to solve.

>
> OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented,
> will be an extremely strong pull factor. If we could somehow breach
> the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will certainly be
> wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.

I'm with you 110% there too.

So. How do we get this thing going?

Can reverse-engineering solve that one too?  :)

Ian

>
> Argh. Last ounce of energy. 2am. Later.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Ian McNulty wrote:
>> Jonathon,
>>
>> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me
>> OFbiz rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
>>
>> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>
>> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid
>> possible disappointment further down the line.
>>
>> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and
>> have had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to
>> php. But it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C,
>> so OOP and Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java,
>> Minilang, or Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch,
>> will always be miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious
>> danger of being more of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting
>> reading Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe
>> there just aren't enough years left to get up to speed on all this?
>>
>> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on
>> where I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
>>
>>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is
>> no shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip
>> down the engine and stick it back together again working better than
>> ever, before I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee,
>> depending on what side of the pond you're on. :)
>>
>> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to
>> have people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door
>> locks when you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But
>> I've also been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can
>> be to have someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the
>> bonnet, polish the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt,
>> after you've done your bit and just need to go home to bed.
>>
>> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm
>> better off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on
>> what the average driver needs to see.
>>
>> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce
>> for SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on
>> osCommerce and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any
>> one time! But the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a
>> successful website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house
>> accounting and POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
>>
>> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly
>> discuss here.
>>
>> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K
>> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all.
>> Store owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the
>> learning curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the
>> reliability of the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After
>> a while they start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine,
>> which is where the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is
>> something they will not even contemplate until they are confident
>> they have a solid vehicle that will take them reliably from A to B.
>>
>> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many
>> levels of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to
>> those who don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer
>> themselves. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. For every one
>> member on these forums there are 9 others who can't even handle the
>> log in and just want somebody to take care of it all for them.
>>
>> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
>> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
>> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is
>> that a wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels
>> of mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>
>> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>
>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting
>>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen
>>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I
>>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>
>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus
>>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end
>>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form
>>> widgets to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are
>>> generally better documented since their developers focus develoment
>>> time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool)
>>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>
>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java
>>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>>
>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in
>>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero
>>> Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>>
>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and
>>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be
>>> comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in
>>> Minilang is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get
>>> paid by someone to completely reverse-engineer and document all of
>>> Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a
>>> month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>
>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>
>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is
>>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and
>>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to
>>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>
>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian,
>>>> Jonathon), let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working
>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients
>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets
>>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation
>>>>> from running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't
>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving
>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it
>>>>> should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of
>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the
>>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who
>>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough
>>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple
>>>>> driver handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point
>>>>> of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of
>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor
>>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to
>>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to
>>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How
>>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator
>>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the
>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the
>>>>> golf club is everything, than to the small businessman in the
>>>>> street who accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an
>>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch
>>>>> which needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and
>>>>> the need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is
>>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains
>>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the
>>>>> opposite. One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown
>>>>> on the first test drive and they've had their one bite of the
>>>>> cherry and ain't never coming back for more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list
>>>>> is more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in
>>>>> business suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help
>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent
>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of
>>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on
>>>>> getting us to Mars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of
>>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model
>>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves
>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more
>>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary
>>>>>> steps in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for
>>>>>> some fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the
>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the
>>>>>> ecommerce (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things,
>>>>>> though. And also manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture
>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to
>>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute
>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out
>>>>>> how things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see
>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs.
>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of
>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do
>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small
>>>>>> crack teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to
>>>>>> break vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given
>>>>>> that it's opensource no less, is really... an interesting
>>>>>> exercise, not a tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I
>>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're
>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if
>>>>>> you're waiting for the community to fix them, you could be
>>>>>> looking at weeks before a patch goes in, especially for
>>>>>> non-trivial fixes that take time to review/audit. I'm currently
>>>>>> holding quite a number of fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by
>>>>>> community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month.
>>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for
>>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is
>>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special
>>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you
>>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages
>>>>>>> for use
>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how
>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it
>>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small
>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic
>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i
>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to
>>>>>>> download, and a
>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Ian McNulty]

Jacques,

All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
with it at all.

Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.

It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
options. Too many possible ways to go.

For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
frustrating... a real turn off.

Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.

Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
supposed to be about.

Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
:-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.

Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
gear and out onto the road.

I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.

But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
has taken years to create.

Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
the road.

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Leon, all,
>
> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...
>
> It's up to you folks...
>
> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>
> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>  
>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>
>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>
>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>
>> - Leon
>>
>>
>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>    
>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>
>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>> ------------------
>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>
>>>      
>
>
>
>  

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL

t: [phone]
e: [hidden email]
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on [phone]

This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

Good point. I'd forgotten about the dialectic. I'd go for that too. Why
not have both? A synthesis of opposites and a rationalisation between
the two. We both agree it's the way to go. By any means necessary as
they say :)

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Ian,
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:59 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
>> balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
>> discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.
>>    
>
> Well, I like to think of it as a dialectic process, but sure, it's the
> way to go!
>  

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL

t: [phone]
e: [hidden email]
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on [phone]

This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================

[Anil Patel]

Ian,
Inspired by your communication in dev ML, Today I created two Jira Issues
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-635<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-636>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-636

I will appreciate feedback and help on these. Our team can do fair job on
development work, When it comes to writing things up, we fail. Can you help
in re-organizing the documents referenced in those issues so we can use them
for providing Help to user.

Regards
Anil Patel



On 1/19/07, Ian McNulty <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Andrew,
>
> Good point. I'd forgotten about the dialectic. I'd go for that too. Why
> not have both? A synthesis of opposites and a rationalisation between
> the two. We both agree it's the way to go. By any means necessary as
> they say :)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Ian,
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:59 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >
> >> I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
> >> balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
> >> discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I like to think of it as a dialectic process, but sure, it's the
> > way to go!
> >
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: [phone]
> e: [hidden email]
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>
> ==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s)
> named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
> discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information
> contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by
> telephone on [phone]
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any
> liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that
> you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>
> ==============================================================================================
>

[jonwimp]

Ian,

 > That would be great. Problem is that I need help on so many areas of
 > OFBiz, it's difficult to know where to start.

Start with your first question. "Where is the door??". Then "ok, doorknob?". It always has to
start somewhere.

The trick is to make sure you give some (reasonable) lead time for the response to come. Ie, don't
go to your tailor 1 hour before closing time to ask for a new suit for the night!

Well, "reasonable" is pretty much tied to "motivation". So if you ask me what I think about
Martians, and all I care about are Mermaids, you'll probably hear from me when the Martians
finally visit us 50 years from now.

But since we're "hot" on cooperating, I'm all ears now. :)

 > You sound much too busy at the moment to get into such things, so
 > probably best left till the heat is off. I haven't even figured out if
 > there is a PM system on this mailing list. How best can we get in touch?

Busy yes. Liability, plenty. But you could be the X-factor I need to take the heat off! Just email
me at my email adress.

 > I guess the first thing would have to be the concept and the framework.
 >  From what I can see, this isn't just another hack job.

No, it isn't. From the entity engine to the front-end widgets and Minilang, you'll see that an
entire ecosystem has been grown just to make it easy to work OFBiz (I know, irony here, hold on
for a bit, I'll help).

Anyway, Java APIs have always been easy to handle. There are lots of solid 3rd-party modules
integrated into OFBiz, and tested. There's now talk of integrating telephony functions into OFBiz.

 > There are some pretty obvious, straightforward, superficial
 > red-flags that nobody seems too concerned about sorting.

I can't speak for the rest. But I'll tell you that someone here once said he liked OFBiz precisely
because of it's high cost of entry! I don't remember who. It's just human, you know? How would you
like to give arm and leg to help the next newbie understand your competitive advantage? :) That's
my job, by the way, to break vendor-lock.

 > As I've said before. The last thing the guys in the workshop want to see
 > is a moron standing on the forecourt complaining he can't open the door.
 > It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it :)

I know the veterans here will hate me for saying this, but this is the truth. It's not just
opening the door to the workshop. Speaking from a rather techie point of view, I'd say it's more
like new engineers are asking for access to the "documentation store" (only to find it somewhat
empty after prying it open).

One thing you need to know is that the veterans and community just went through a gruelling
initiation into ASF (apache software foundation). Many are burned out. Many need to get back to
work that piled up.

I believe that the "documentation store" will fill up over time, probably 1-2 years from now,
depending on how charitable the community feels with their spare time.

 > I guess what I'd like to see is a team of engineers who are prepared to
 > take up that kind of challenge. What does the average driver need to get
 > on the road. What can we do to remove the obstacles in his way.
 >
 > If anybody is interested in working in that direction, that's certainly
 > the way I'd like to go.

I don't know, actually. What are the motivations for investing in docs that catapult OFBiz idiots
(newbies) to status of OFBiz users? I'll only comment on this privately. Sorry.

But you're absolutely right. Getting OFBiz to average drivers will mean very easy sells. Tell you
something. My boss was about to give up on OFBiz several times already (yes, the functions have
problems, issues). I begged, oh I begged!

Just to let you know how buggy or polished OFBiz is. OFBiz framework should be considered separate
from the ERP functions that has been built with that framework. So, there's OFBiz framework, and
there's OFBiz ERP. OFBiz framework is marvelous, very tight and robust codes. It's what's built
with it, the "application layer" (not framework layer) so to speak, that's the problem.

It's like I give you a terribly buggy Java application. It can mean 2 things: either Java is
horrible, or I am incompetent. In OFBiz's case, the core framework is tight.

 >> That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love
 >> complainers! That's the best way I'll know to fix something.
 >
 > Great. So how do we begin?

Hmm. We can start with personal emails. Then I could set up a.. er... private Mantis (simple bug
reporter, like JIRA) for you. I'll guide you on how to get started real quick.

What I need from you is user-testing time, that's all. Enter data, test, thrash, comment, complain.

It's not that I want your inputs for myself only. It's just that there really isn't anywhere we
can put your contributions for now. You already know where this mailing list stands (after
listening for weeks now?).

I'm looking to document OFBiz to a large extent. You can help me in documenting the ERP aspects of
OFBiz; I can work on the core.

 >> Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece
 >> of pie, we can help each other. But you might have to go through my
 >> boss first.
 >
 > OK. So what do I have to do? Flying out to Singapore is not an option
 > for me at the moment. What would your boss need me to do?

I'm working in Singapore (or Malaysia or Asia generally), my boss is in USA. Welcome to internet
connectivity.

To tell you the truth, my boss is one of those who are absolutely too busy with his business to do
a lot of comprehensive user-testing. I want my boss to be successful at what he does, so I
wouldn't want to take him away from his job. That's where you can help me! I'll help you in
return, of course. I mean, how can you do user-testing without a running instance of OFBiz??

Hey wait. Come to think of it, why don't you use one of my many "virtual OFBiz instances" instead?
No setup cost (time or money) for you! Yes, in case you're wondering, it IS possible to run many
virtual instances serving many domains owned by separate people. My boss has 1 virtual instance, I
have 1. Would you like 1 too? :)

 > The trick would be to have some kind of filtering process, where easily
 > solved dummy problems are dealt with by those with base-level skills,
 > and really difficult ones can be referred upwards for the A-team to solve.

Volunteers volunteers volunteers, needed at every stratum. You don't always get enough volunteers
at every stratum. For example, how would you like to be labeled an OFBiz idiot and told to swim in
base-level forums? (Or conversely, you might hate being called "expert".) For example, in Asian
governments, it's not uncommon to see low-level competence in high-level staff. It's a very human
problem. Many people want to be where they cannot be. (I think White House has a room with my name
on it? Ha!)

I think private motivations (profit) generally drive advances even in opensource arena. Even
Mantis has sponsors (but I have a simple critical bug submitted some months ago that isn't fixed!).

I understand your ecosystem of "worldwide users" plus "phenomenal market awareness" fuelling "more
adoption". All that takes preparatory investments, capital/effort outlay. I believe many OFBiz
veterans here are already earning money selling small (compared to your vision), and probably
struggling to garner more support for OFBiz in their spare time.

But sure, we can go it ourselves, serve the average drivers market (which should be many times
more massive than race car driver market!).

Over time, we may have enough docs to form a repository that we can publish somewhere. I'd hope to
put that back to OFBiz community, but as you said, OFBiz veterans seem to have very different
focus than us average drivers.

We might put up a "sister/brother site" dishing out stable releases of OFBiz (just like what
OpenTaps is doing). Someone could manage community-building. We could have a definitive site
containing generous insider-tips, latest and greatest customizations, critical bugfixes that
aren't in OFBiz yet, etc.

Then you'll have contributed to OFBiz in a way you wanted to. And leave the rocket scientists to
enhance the core in peace (since many of my customizations and bugfixes will probably not see the
light of day in OFBiz, due to what?). But at end of day, all that at what costs to yourself?

 >> OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented,
 >> will be an extremely strong pull factor. If we could somehow breach
 >> the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will certainly be
 >> wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.
 >
 > I'm with you 110% there too.
 >
 > So. How do we get this thing going?
 >
 > Can reverse-engineering solve that one too?  :)

Absolutely. We're not even talking about compiled binaries! The source codes are open for all to
see. It's like having a mountain of blueprints, blueprints that when fed into a factory will
produce the product (so that eliminates problem of discrepancy between blueprint and actual product).

If you're willing to go at it, I can show you how it can be done. Have you done functional
programming and regular expressions? Need that at least to start. Well, ok, to cut to chase, you'd
be looking good if you have experience writing compilers and interpreters.

 > This reverse-engineering thing sounds fascinating. Not sure what
 > that is exactly. Do you mean looking at the effect and trying to
 > figure out the cause?

Hmm. Something like that, for simpler cases.

You know how you can trace through an application's codes (follow code execution path) to figure
out how the application works? That's the brute-force way.

But very often, you can leap from point to point in pseudo-tracing through the application. Simple
detective games. You need to look at the effect, shotgun-assess chunks of codes, rapidly eliminate
false positives, pinpoint a few candidate causes, then work backwards from there to the effect
(that started the journey) to verify each candidate cause.

Pattern recognition. Work backwards.

Jonathon

Ian McNulty wrote:

> Jonathon,
>
> Got to say that I like where you're coming from here. Particularly your
> attitude to complaints. I'm thinking Toyota production system and the
> Honda ads. here - "Hate Something, Change Something, Make Something
> Better."
>
>>
>> > Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>
>> Sure. We'll let each other know where we need help.
>>
>
> That would be great. Problem is that I need help on so many areas of
> OFBiz, it's difficult to know where to start.
>
> You sound much too busy at the moment to get into such things, so
> probably best left till the heat is off. I haven't even figured out if
> there is a PM system on this mailing list. How best can we get in touch?
>
>>
>> I'm not exactly a programmer myself, Ian. Do I know all of Java?
>> Probably just 1% (well, ok, I did know 99% once).
>
> Aha. There you go. I've forgotten most of what I knew too. But I never
> knew any Java. So I'm trying to run from a completely cold start.
>
>> If I do happen to score well, it's because I worked on
>> reverse-engineering my memory faculties, not the programming topic at
>> hand. I went through school studying my learning faculties rather than
>> the topics at hand.
>
> This reverse-engineering thing sounds fascinating. Not sure what that is
> exactly. Do you mean looking at the effect and trying to figure out the
> cause?
>
>> Yeah, shame on me. But you can say the same of many Singaporeans!
>> (Dispassionate, robotic, relentless bunch of soulless creatures.)
>
> Yeah. I've heard such things said. But I never believe anything I see on
> TV :)
>
>>
>> What I'm saying is you, given your prior engineering experience plus
>> some sense of adventure and clever experimentation, can more than pick
>> up any concepts or tools you need to work OFBiz. Probably more than I
>> can. I'm just a simple reverse-engineer (problem-solver in general),
>> not a real engineer. I'm also one of those "average weekend drivers",
>> not just someone in overalls. Just focus on "whatever is relevant to
>> you at the moment", and you'll get started quick. I can try to show
>> you how if you'd like. Try my methods of picking up OFBiz or anything
>> in general. Won't hurt (I think). Take Andrew Sykes' advice to Andrew
>> Ballantine: "take a part of the code that is of interest to you
>> (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and then work through
>> artifact by artifact".
>
> I doubt I could pick it up faster than you. But nice of you to say so
> anyway. Words of encouragement are always appreciated  :)
>
> That aside, I guess my attitude has always been pretty much as you
> describe. The only computer language learned formally - Algol - was out
> of date before I'd finished reading the manual. From then on I decided
> not to worry about how much I understood. Just grab what I could, hack
> it together and knock any bits that didn't fit into shape. Just get the
> thing running. By any means necessary.
>
> But there's something different about OFBiz that made me want to try a
> completely different tack.
>
> Hard to describe what that is exactly.
>
> I guess the first thing would have to be the concept and the framework.
>  From what I can see, this isn't just another hack job. It's been so
> beautifully designed from the ground up. A real leap forward and a world
> beater if I ever saw one. I could be wrong. But I keep thinking that the
> potential is just awesome!
>
> The second thing would be how easy it was to get started, but how
> difficult to get past first gear. I've never encountered anything like
> that before. I manage to pin one problem down to something I think I can
> handle, then suddenly another bigger one pops up somewhere else. And yet
> none of this shakes my confidence in the original design. Very curious!!!
>
> I guess my conclusion from all this is that the details are all sortable
> in one way or another, but the main thing that seems to be missing from
> the picture is the long view. OK, so all the bits seem to be roughly in
> place. But step back and see what it looks like on the garage
> forecourt.  There are some pretty obvious, straightforward, superficial
> red-flags that nobody seems too concerned about sorting.
>
> How could that be, unless everybody was so busy concentrating on the
> details of the trees that nobody had time to step back and look at the
> general outline of the forest?
>
> That's all that seems to be missing from this project, and the only real
> contribution I thought I might be able to make:
>
> Assume infinite ignorance and unlimited intelligence. Supposing I take
> off my overalls and put on my business suit? Approach this thing as
> someone who doesn't want to know how to use a spanner, just how to drive
> it to work. What obstacles are standing in my way? Stop trying to hop
> over obstacles, the way most of us usually do. Adopt a zero tolerance
> policy. Don't move on until the problem is isolated, pinned down, boxed
> up, and written down in the handbook.
>
> As I've said before. The last thing the guys in the workshop want to see
> is a moron standing on the forecourt complaining he can't open the door.
> It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it :)
>
> Having said that, I think this group has been much more patient than any
> other I have encountered to date. But I don't want to push it much further.
>
> I guess what I'd like to see is a team of engineers who are prepared to
> take up that kind of challenge. What does the average driver need to get
> on the road. What can we do to remove the obstacles in his way.
>
> If anybody is interested in working in that direction, that's certainly
> the way I'd like to go.
>
> But I do think we need another forum for doing this, so we don't get in
> the way of the guys who are working on building an even better mousetrap
> than what's already there.
>
> Exactly what that forum could be is something I'm still not clear about.
> All ideas greatly appreciated.
>
>>
>> I believe that you'll be customizing OFBiz within a day of research,
>> just like I did. Just like many folks here did, I believe.
>>
>> Join us! (or *hynotically* "join... us... join... us..."). Heh.
>
> I appreciate your encouragement and think you're probably right.
>
> But I really do believe that somebody has to step back from all this and
> play the average driver on the forecourt.
>
> I believe this is the most useful thing I can do at the moment and am
> determined to try and keep doing it until somebody chucks a spanner in
> my works :)
>
>>
>> Well, my boss (and previous bosses) will probably tell you I can be
>> irritating when I kept trying to make a software engineer out of him.
>> But I'm seriously telling you that OFBiz is a solid framework you can
>> easily build on/with. No kidding.
>
> I have absolutely no doubt about that too.
>>
>> We just need to get the documentation and user manuals in place...
>
> Absolutely my opinion too.
>
>>
>> That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love
>> complainers! That's the best way I'll know to fix something.
>
> Great. So how do we begin?
>
>>
>> > For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for
>> > SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on
>> osCommerce and Zen
>> > Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But the
>> problem
>> > they are all now facing is, now they have a successful website, how
>> do they
>> > integrate the back end with in-house accounting and POS? Which is how I
>> > discovered OFbiz in the first place.
>>
>> Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece
>> of pie, we can help each other. But you might have to go through my
>> boss first.
>
> OK. So what do I have to do? Flying out to Singapore is not an option
> for me at the moment. What would your boss need me to do?
>
>>
>> > I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
>> > why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
>> > glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is
>> that a
>> > wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of
>> > mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>
>> We'll need a really solid effort to do all that, multi-tiered forums
>> and all. Lots of work in forum moderation (but sure, we can recruit
>> solid volunteers to help in every stratum). And then OFBiz might
>> become like MySQL. Or sellout eventually like Compiere?
>
> I suspect that once the framework of some kind of open forum was
> established, there would be no end of volunteers to moderate it.
>
> The problem with all such forums I've seen is the level of contact with
> the core developers.
>
> In Zen Cart for instance, the core team seem to be online all the time
> and must be worked half to death trying to keep on top of it all. I
> can't believe that one day they aren't just going to give up and walk
> away. So this would not be a great way to go.
>
> On the other hand, on Ubuntu, there seems to be no route through to the
> developers at all. So big issues are left hanging for months unresolved.
>
> The trick would be to have some kind of filtering process, where easily
> solved dummy problems are dealt with by those with base-level skills,
> and really difficult ones can be referred upwards for the A-team to solve.
>
>>
>> OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented,
>> will be an extremely strong pull factor. If we could somehow breach
>> the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will certainly be
>> wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.
>
> I'm with you 110% there too.
>
> So. How do we get this thing going?
>
> Can reverse-engineering solve that one too?  :)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>>
>> Argh. Last ounce of energy. 2am. Later.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>> Jonathon,
>>>
>>> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me
>>> OFbiz rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
>>>
>>> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>>
>>> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid
>>> possible disappointment further down the line.
>>>
>>> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and
>>> have had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to
>>> php. But it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C,
>>> so OOP and Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java,
>>> Minilang, or Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch,
>>> will always be miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious
>>> danger of being more of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting
>>> reading Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe
>>> there just aren't enough years left to get up to speed on all this?
>>>
>>> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on
>>> where I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
>>>
>>>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is
>>> no shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip
>>> down the engine and stick it back together again working better than
>>> ever, before I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee,
>>> depending on what side of the pond you're on. :)
>>>
>>> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to
>>> have people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door
>>> locks when you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But
>>> I've also been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can
>>> be to have someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the
>>> bonnet, polish the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt,
>>> after you've done your bit and just need to go home to bed.
>>>
>>> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm
>>> better off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on
>>> what the average driver needs to see.
>>>
>>> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce
>>> for SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on
>>> osCommerce and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any
>>> one time! But the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a
>>> successful website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house
>>> accounting and POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
>>>
>>> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly
>>> discuss here.
>>>
>>> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K
>>> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all.
>>> Store owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the
>>> learning curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the
>>> reliability of the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After
>>> a while they start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine,
>>> which is where the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is
>>> something they will not even contemplate until they are confident
>>> they have a solid vehicle that will take them reliably from A to B.
>>>
>>> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many
>>> levels of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to
>>> those who don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer
>>> themselves. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. For every one
>>> member on these forums there are 9 others who can't even handle the
>>> log in and just want somebody to take care of it all for them.
>>>
>>> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
>>> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
>>> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is
>>> that a wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels
>>> of mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>>
>>> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>>
>>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting
>>>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen
>>>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I
>>>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>>
>>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus
>>>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end
>>>> develo

ent convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form

>>>> widgets to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are
>>>> generally better documented since their developers focus develoment
>>>> time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool)
>>>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>>
>>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java
>>>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>>>
>>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in
>>>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero
>>>> Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>>>
>>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and
>>>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be
>>>> comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in
>>>> Minilang is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get
>>>> paid by someone to completely reverse-engineer and document all of
>>>> Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a
>>>> month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>>
>>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>>
>>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is
>>>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and
>>>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to
>>>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian,
>>>>> Jonathon), let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working
>>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients
>>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets
>>>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation
>>>>>> from running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't
>>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving
>>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it
>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of
>>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the
>>>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who
>>>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough
>>>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple
>>>>>> driver handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point
>>>>>> of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of
>>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor
>>>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to
>>>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to
>>>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How
>>>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator
>>>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the
>>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the
>>>>>> golf club is everything, than to the small businessman in the
>>>>>> street who accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an
>>>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch
>>>>>> which needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and
>>>>>> the need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is
>>>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains
>>>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the
>>>>>> opposite. One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown
>>>>>> on the first test drive and they've had their one bite of the
>>>>>> cherry and ain't never coming back for more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list
>>>>>> is more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in
>>>>>> business suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help
>>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent
>>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of
>>>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on
>>>>>> getting us to Mars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of
>>>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model
>>>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves
>>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more
>>>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary
>>>>>>> steps in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for
>>>>>>> some fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the
>>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the
>>>>>>> ecommerce (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things,
>>>>>>> though. And also manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture
>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to
>>>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute
>>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out
>>>>>>> how things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see
>>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs.
>>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of
>>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do
>>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small
>>>>>>> crack teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to
>>>>>>> break vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given
>>>>>>> that it's opensource no less, is really... an interesting
>>>>>>> exercise, not a tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I
>>>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're
>>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if
>>>>>>> you're waiting for the community to fix them, you could be
>>>>>>> looking at weeks before a patch goes in, especially for
>>>>>>> non-trivial fixes that take time to review/audit. I'm currently
>>>>>>> holding quite a number of fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by
>>>>>>> community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month.
>>>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for
>>>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is
>>>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special
>>>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you
>>>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages
>>>>>>>> for use
>>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how
>>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it
>>>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small
>>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking
>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic
>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i
>>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to
>>>>>>>> download, and a
>>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using
>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Ian,

"Short" answer (time is flying...). This is only my opinion and not community !

> Jacques,
>
> All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
> engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
> with it at all.
>
> Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
> is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
>
> It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
> presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
> options. Too many possible ways to go.
>
> For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
> frustrating... a real turn off.

I agree on this point : functionnal documentation is missing or rather is scattered. In this kind of doc it's better to explain how
things work. We should
enhance this part and I guess *users* may help on this side... Did you notice that :
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ?

Tautology is of no help as in some parts of  http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports. Sorry David, I
know that  much was done by Les Austin who is certainly a very efficient  technical writer but was maybe lost in OFBiz (not
surprising ;o) ? So it ended with a lot of tautologies just explaining obvious things but not how things are related or how to do.
For instance examples are great in this aspect...
On the other hand it's the most advanced functionnal documentation, just need to be enhanced ?

IMHO the better attempt at it for the moment is the great http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/EAM (note that I used the short link because
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Apache+OFBiz+Business+Setup+Guide may be changed but not the short link that you find in
info tab).

I did also some very limited (how to use/create product catalogs in french ;o) :
http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Creation%20Catalogue%20de%20produits.pdf

BTW there was already a discussion about some ot this point in
http://www.nabble.com/Users---how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let%27s-brainstorm%21-tf1566682.html#a4254938
You see Ian you are not alone. Will you be ready to make an abstract from ?


> Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
> position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
>
> Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
> the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
> around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
> of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
> busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
> supposed to be about.

Yes true, missing :
. A front page (abstract for users and developpers : 2 sections, wih emphasis on users part)
. Some news (mmm... maybe redundant with news on main OFBiz site : to avoid, redundancy is our worst ennemy in this effort)
. A clear pages-tree

> Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
> buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
> people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
> :-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
> essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
> the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.

Yes I agree, this has already been discussed for the Main OFBiz site... Ressouces (human) are needed ...

Jacques

> Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
> policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
> the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
> gear and out onto the road.
>
> I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
>
> But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
> has taken years to create.
>
> Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
> the road.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Leon, all,
> >
> > There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ.

I

> > can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...
> >
> > It's up to you folks...
> >
> > For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
> > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
> >
> > BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> > Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >
> >
> >
> >> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
> >> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
> >> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
> >>
> >> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
> >> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >>
> >> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >>
> >> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
> >> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
> >> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
> >>
> >> - Leon
> >>
> >>
> >> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >>
> >>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
> >>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
> >>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
> >>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
> >>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
> >>>
> >>> --Florin Jurcovici
> >>> ------------------
> >>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: [phone]
> e: [hidden email]
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of

distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
(0)191 384 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> ==============================================================================================

[Ian McNulty]

Jacques,

The most interesting thing for me is Si's
how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let's brainstorm thread.

So you have all been here before! It's going to take me some time to
read and get up to speed on all that.

But like you said, time is flying....

To me, Application Overview for Users says it all.

Like all the documentation, I had great hopes that this might finally be
something I could get my teeth into and really understand.

After scrolling through 9 pages of Contents, my heart sank at the first
sentence of the actual text:

For greater detail of the Sales Order process, see Section <B>3. Sales
Order: Entry, Fulfillment and Returns</B>,
below. <P> For an explanation of all the fields, see the individual
Manager Reference documents for
<B>Accounting</B>, <B>Catalog</B>, <B>Facility</B>, <B>Order</B>,
<B>Party</B>, and others.

The first sentence is so important. So what on earth is the point of all
that?

Scanning down quickly I'm dismayed to discover that we haven't got more
than half a page in before the hierarchy has already reached 6 levels
deep with item number  .2.1.1.3.1.1

Intellectually rigorous no doubt. But... Well I'm sure you know what I mean!

I guess the thing that really puzzles me is that everybody on this list
seems to write so well. So how come most documents I come across leave
me scratching my head in confusion before I've got the the end of the
first page?

It's still a mystery to me. I guess I just have to accept that there are
some puzzles that I will never be able to crack.

Ian





Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Ian,
>
> "Short" answer (time is flying...). This is only my opinion and not community !
>
>  
>> Jacques,
>>
>> All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
>> engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
>> with it at all.
>>
>> Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
>> is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
>>
>> It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
>> presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
>> options. Too many possible ways to go.
>>
>> For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
>> frustrating... a real turn off.
>>    
>
> I agree on this point : functionnal documentation is missing or rather is scattered. In this kind of doc it's better to explain how
> things work. We should
> enhance this part and I guess *users* may help on this side... Did you notice that :
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ?
>
> Tautology is of no help as in some parts of  http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports. Sorry David, I
> know that  much was done by Les Austin who is certainly a very efficient  technical writer but was maybe lost in OFBiz (not
> surprising ;o) ? So it ended with a lot of tautologies just explaining obvious things but not how things are related or how to do.
> For instance examples are great in this aspect...
> On the other hand it's the most advanced functionnal documentation, just need to be enhanced ?
>
> IMHO the better attempt at it for the moment is the great http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/EAM (note that I used the short link because
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Apache+OFBiz+Business+Setup+Guide may be changed but not the short link that you find in
> info tab).
>
> I did also some very limited (how to use/create product catalogs in french ;o) :
> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Creation%20Catalogue%20de%20produits.pdf
>
> BTW there was already a discussion about some ot this point in
> http://www.nabble.com/Users---how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let%27s-brainstorm%21-tf1566682.html#a4254938
> You see Ian you are not alone. Will you be ready to make an abstract from ?
>
>
>  
>> Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
>> position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
>>
>> Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
>> the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
>> around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
>> of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
>> busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
>> supposed to be about.
>>    
>
> Yes true, missing :
> . A front page (abstract for users and developpers : 2 sections, wih emphasis on users part)
> . Some news (mmm... maybe redundant with news on main OFBiz site : to avoid, redundancy is our worst ennemy in this effort)
> . A clear pages-tree
>
>  
>> Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
>> buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
>> people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
>> :-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
>> essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
>> the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.
>>    
>
> Yes I agree, this has already been discussed for the Main OFBiz site... Ressouces (human) are needed ...
>
> Jacques
>
>  
>> Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
>> policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
>> the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
>> gear and out onto the road.
>>
>> I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
>>
>> But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
>> has taken years to create.
>>
>> Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
>> the road.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>    
>>> Leon, all,
>>>
>>> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ.
>>>      
> I
>  
>>> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...
>>>
>>> It's up to you folks...
>>>
>>> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
>>> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
>>>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
>>>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
>>>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
>>>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
>>>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>>>
>>>> - Leon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: [phone]
>> e: [hidden email]
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ==============================================================================================
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
>>    
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
> (0)191 384 4736
>  
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
>>    
> would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>  
>> ==============================================================================================
>>    
>
>
>
>  

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL

t: [phone]
e: [hidden email]
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on [phone]

This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================

[David E Jones]

On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to  
> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute  
> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how  
> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see  
> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs.  
> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.

That's a little inaccurate...

Try:

http://ofbiz.apache.org/documents.html
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/PQM
http://docs.ofbiz.org/

I always find it entertaining to see people talk about docs. Some  
express dismay at how much documentation there is and how much time  
it takes to go through it all. Others say there are no docs  
whatsoever nor any sort of resource to learn about it... Oh well.

Enjoy!

-David

[David E Jones]

On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of  
> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the  
> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who  
> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough  
> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple  
> driver handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>
> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point  
> of view.

Have you had a chance to check out this section of the docs.ofbiz.org  
site?

http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBENDUSER

It's certainly not complete, nor terribly up-to-date any more as Andy  
and I stopped funding this a few months ago, and no one has really  
seriously picked it up yet.

For any future efforts, this is the place to work on...

-David

[David E Jones]

On Jan 18, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>
> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting  
> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen  
> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I  
> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>
> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-
> specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end development  
> convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to a  
> large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better  
> documented since their developers focus develoment time solely on  
> those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't  
> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>
> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java  
> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>
> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you  
> in Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero  
> Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>
> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/
> form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive,  
> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more  
> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone  
> to completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and  
> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not  
> an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).

Complete coverage of the framework already exists. Start at the link  
below, and continue on to the advanced framework materials:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/PQM

-David

[David E Jones]

On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended  
> to help.
> I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in  
> that there
> tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither  
> reference nor
> tutorial. And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will  
> try to
> document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out  
> a style
> and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this  
> can be
> difficult in the open source environment.
>
> I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the  
> wiki is
> restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the  
> wiki, users
> should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need  
> for further
> detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the  
> contents in
> black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you  
> are all
> willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.

Here is some structure stuff that is somewhat up-to-date for OFBiz  
(updated some of it as part of creating the recent training videos),  
and these are mostly technically oriented, but a general structure of  
sorts anyway:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/Comprehensive+OFBiz+Training 
+Outlines

-David