Starting and completing a production run

[Andrew Sykes]

+1 For leaving the jars in place. It always makes me wince when I have
to trawl the web to look for all the dependencies when installing
something.

Seems funny to be discussing an auto-installer and stripping out all the
jars in the same week!

I guess it just goes to show how different people's perspectives are.

- Andrew

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 11:36 -0700, David E Jones wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
> > Whoa! You checked in even the library jars? Could've kept a mere 1-
> > liner document specifying which library version (fop, velocity,  
> > json, etc) is "tested and approved" with the current revision, and  
> > then kept the actual jar file somewhere else in a file server.
>
> Wouldn't that be a royal pain? I would certainly hate adding in  
> dozens of jars manually, and for people just getting started... maybe  
> I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at...
>
> -David
>

--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

[David E Jones-2]

On Jan 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sykes wrote:

> +1 For leaving the jars in place. It always makes me wince when I have
> to trawl the web to look for all the dependencies when installing
> something.
>
> Seems funny to be discussing an auto-installer and stripping out  
> all the
> jars in the same week!
>
> I guess it just goes to show how different people's perspectives are.

Yes, this is a perfect example of the glory of the open source  
way... ;) If there is an opinion, it will come out sooner or later,  
and sometimes some interesting combinations all at once.

It's years of hearing these sorts of perspectives that has lead me to  
lose my faith (well, not that I ever really had any) in a one size  
fits all type of solution for just about anything.

-David

[Andrew Sykes]

Well, sure, that's why I always need a belt with my trousers ;-)

The generic nature of OfBiz is one of the most irritating things for
everyone and at the same time OfBiz's greatest asset.

What a funny world we live in!

- Andrew

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:53 -0700, David E Jones wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sykes wrote:
>
> > +1 For leaving the jars in place. It always makes me wince when I have
> > to trawl the web to look for all the dependencies when installing
> > something.
> >
> > Seems funny to be discussing an auto-installer and stripping out  
> > all the
> > jars in the same week!
> >
> > I guess it just goes to show how different people's perspectives are.
>
> Yes, this is a perfect example of the glory of the open source  
> way... ;) If there is an opinion, it will come out sooner or later,  
> and sometimes some interesting combinations all at once.
>
> It's years of hearing these sorts of perspectives that has lead me to  
> lose my faith (well, not that I ever really had any) in a one size  
> fits all type of solution for just about anything.
>
> -David
>

--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

[jonwimp]

You're right, it's a pain to put in the jars we need upon checking out from SVN, true. Just like
how we need to put in MySQL jdbc connector (I wouldn't recommend checking that in, since MySQL
connector could change often).

I guess it's ok to put the jars in if they don't change often at all (say once in a year). SVN
makes "cheap" copies of static files, so you don't waste lots of disk space storing multiple
copies of jars in various branches. You probably have that scheme in place: check in very stable
unchanging jars, leave out uncertain 3rd-party jars. That said, you probably can take quite some
pressure off the SVN server if you kept the static jars on another system (say file server). Only
when the SVN server faces overload issues.

By the way, what happened to OFBiz releases? Were there ever any? Nothing in branches or tags.

Jonathon

David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> Whoa! You checked in even the library jars? Could've kept a mere
>> 1-liner document specifying which library version (fop, velocity,
>> json, etc) is "tested and approved" with the current revision, and
>> then kept the actual jar file somewhere else in a file server.
>
> Wouldn't that be a royal pain? I would certainly hate adding in dozens
> of jars manually, and for people just getting started... maybe I'm
> misunderstanding what you're getting at...
>
> -David
>

[jonwimp]

I don't see any other direction for OFBiz to aspire towards. Always good to have a superset of
features, then customize or cut down for specialized needs.

Eg, the Party concept is flexible and great, so I can even make my cat a "person". So is the
Product concept, allowing for multi-level BOMs easily.

By the way, I've just completed my testing of the Job Shop problem (the reason I started this
thread). Will post my findings in this thread.

Jonathon

Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Well, sure, that's why I always need a belt with my trousers ;-)
>
> The generic nature of OfBiz is one of the most irritating things for
> everyone and at the same time OfBiz's greatest asset.
>
> What a funny world we live in!
>
> - Andrew
>
> On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:53 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>
>>> +1 For leaving the jars in place. It always makes me wince when I have
>>> to trawl the web to look for all the dependencies when installing
>>> something.
>>>
>>> Seems funny to be discussing an auto-installer and stripping out  
>>> all the
>>> jars in the same week!
>>>
>>> I guess it just goes to show how different people's perspectives are.
>> Yes, this is a perfect example of the glory of the open source  
>> way... ;) If there is an opinion, it will come out sooner or later,  
>> and sometimes some interesting combinations all at once.
>>
>> It's years of hearing these sorts of perspectives that has lead me to  
>> lose my faith (well, not that I ever really had any) in a one size  
>> fits all type of solution for just about anything.
>>
>> -David
>>

[cjhowe]

--- Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> wrote:


> Eg, the Party concept is flexible and great, so I
> can even make my cat a "person". So is the
> Product concept, allowing for multi-level BOMs
> easily.
>

Now that's just silly ;)  To correctly model the
inclusion of your cat, you would need ...

1) Create a partyTypeId of ANIMAL
2) Depending on your specificity of data collection
make another PartyTypeId of CAT
3) Make the partyTypeId ANIMAL a parent to CAT
4) review the majority of things dealing with parties
to consider if they should be dealing with instances
of cats or animals

otherwise you are simply misrepresenting your data
:o)

[jonwimp]

David,

> Yes, if you're having problems the _first_ thing you should do is try it
> with the latest OFBiz from SVN, and without the OSS financials or crmsfa
> modules in place.

OFBiz works. Yes, you're right (Jacopo too) that this has something to do with OpenTaps' financial
module. Nothing in the docs yet. Si Chen said on the financial forums that configuration
instructions are in "Users Manual...Financials, Managing Inventory document". There's a
UserDocs.htm and TechnicalDocs.htm in /hot-deploy/financial/docs, but they don't contain a section
on "Managing Inventory".

It all comes down to 2 paths taken by financial module upon issuance of component in Job Shop
(after starting routing task), taken by UtilsCOGS::getProductAverageCost(). The entity
"ProductAverageCost" will be searched first, failing which the product module service
"calculateProductCosts" will be called, which in turn gets to BOM service
"getManufacturingComponents". That's where it bombs, because ETH_BRAND has no BOM components.

The only place where records for entity ProductAverageCost is ever created is in financial module
service "financials.ImportProductInventory". I can't see where this service is evered invoked.

Well, results are out. I'm left with few(er) options. I can try to buy Si Chen lunch or flowers or
something, or I'll have to dig through the financials docs again (or hire a psychic to help?). The
only answer to a similar "unable to find a product average cost" error posted to the financial
forums yielded a 1-liner answer: look through docs. I think/hope that means few people have had
the same problem and that it's really a non-problem.

Si Chen just kinda complained that I was being not humble in the mailing list. So, I'd like to
publicly apologize to Si Chen. I have no time to space out messages that goes like "OpenTaps does
not have this, or that", only time enough to speak the facts quickly to seek help. Sorry!

I'll certainly carefully and correctly segregate my posts between OFBiz list and OpenTaps list.

That's it. This thread is resolved.

Jonathon

[Jacques Le Roux]

What about MAMAL ? ;p

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Howe" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run

>
> --- Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> > Eg, the Party concept is flexible and great, so I
> > can even make my cat a "person". So is the
> > Product concept, allowing for multi-level BOMs
> > easily.
> >
>
> Now that's just silly ;)  To correctly model the
> inclusion of your cat, you would need ...
>
> 1) Create a partyTypeId of ANIMAL
> 2) Depending on your specificity of data collection
> make another PartyTypeId of CAT
> 3) Make the partyTypeId ANIMAL a parent to CAT
> 4) review the majority of things dealing with parties
> to consider if they should be dealing with instances
> of cats or animals
>
> otherwise you are simply misrepresenting your data
> :o)

[jonwimp]

No! My cat is a person, I'm telling you! Now, everybody, this is "Catherine Kitty". No, I don't
have a cat, just kidding.

We used to say that our rifles should be our wives (the army taught us). Join the army, they say.
Hard to avoid having our object model messed up. Then our bayonets would be our girlfriends, and
our swiss knives mistresses.

Anybody has any opinions of the data model books recommended on
http://ofbiz.apache.org/documents.html ?

The Data Model Resource Book, Vol. 1: A Library of Universal Data Models for All Enterprises
The Data Model Resource Book, Vol. 2: A Library of Data Models for Specific Industries

Jonathon

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> What about MAMAL ? ;p
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Howe" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 5:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run
>
>
>> --- Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Eg, the Party concept is flexible and great, so I
>>> can even make my cat a "person". So is the
>>> Product concept, allowing for multi-level BOMs
>>> easily.
>>>
>> Now that's just silly ;)  To correctly model the
>> inclusion of your cat, you would need ...
>>
>> 1) Create a partyTypeId of ANIMAL
>> 2) Depending on your specificity of data collection
>> make another PartyTypeId of CAT
>> 3) Make the partyTypeId ANIMAL a parent to CAT
>> 4) review the majority of things dealing with parties
>> to consider if they should be dealing with instances
>> of cats or animals
>>
>> otherwise you are simply misrepresenting your data
>> :o)
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

IMHO the 1st ismandatory, up to you for the 2d (I did not read it)

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Tom Anderson" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run

> No! My cat is a person, I'm telling you! Now, everybody, this is "Catherine Kitty". No, I don't
> have a cat, just kidding.
>
> We used to say that our rifles should be our wives (the army taught us). Join the army, they say.
> Hard to avoid having our object model messed up. Then our bayonets would be our girlfriends, and
> our swiss knives mistresses.
>
> Anybody has any opinions of the data model books recommended on
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/documents.html ?
>
> The Data Model Resource Book, Vol. 1: A Library of Universal Data Models for All Enterprises
> The Data Model Resource Book, Vol. 2: A Library of Data Models for Specific Industries
>
> Jonathon
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > What about MAMAL ? ;p
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Howe" <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 5:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run
> >
> >
> >> --- Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Eg, the Party concept is flexible and great, so I
> >>> can even make my cat a "person". So is the
> >>> Product concept, allowing for multi-level BOMs
> >>> easily.
> >>>
> >> Now that's just silly ;)  To correctly model the
> >> inclusion of your cat, you would need ...
> >>
> >> 1) Create a partyTypeId of ANIMAL
> >> 2) Depending on your specificity of data collection
> >> make another PartyTypeId of CAT
> >> 3) Make the partyTypeId ANIMAL a parent to CAT
> >> 4) review the majority of things dealing with parties
> >> to consider if they should be dealing with instances
> >> of cats or animals
> >>
> >> otherwise you are simply misrepresenting your data
> >> :o)
> >
> >

[Jacopo Cappellato]

I agree with Jacques, the first is a *must*, the second is optional (a
nice reading).

Jacopo

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> IMHO the 1st ismandatory, up to you for the 2d (I did not read it)
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "Tom Anderson" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run
>
>
>> No! My cat is a person, I'm telling you! Now, everybody, this is "Catherine Kitty". No, I don't
>> have a cat, just kidding.
>>
>> We used to say that our rifles should be our wives (the army taught us). Join the army, they say.
>> Hard to avoid having our object model messed up. Then our bayonets would be our girlfriends, and
>> our swiss knives mistresses.
>>
>> Anybody has any opinions of the data model books recommended on
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/documents.html ?
>>
>> The Data Model Resource Book, Vol. 1: A Library of Universal Data Models for All Enterprises
>> The Data Model Resource Book, Vol. 2: A Library of Data Models for Specific Industries
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> What about MAMAL ? ;p
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Chris Howe" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 5:30 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run
>>>
>>>
>>>> --- Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eg, the Party concept is flexible and great, so I
>>>>> can even make my cat a "person". So is the
>>>>> Product concept, allowing for multi-level BOMs
>>>>> easily.
>>>>>
>>>> Now that's just silly ;)  To correctly model the
>>>> inclusion of your cat, you would need ...
>>>>
>>>> 1) Create a partyTypeId of ANIMAL
>>>> 2) Depending on your specificity of data collection
>>>> make another PartyTypeId of CAT
>>>> 3) Make the partyTypeId ANIMAL a parent to CAT
>>>> 4) review the majority of things dealing with parties
>>>> to consider if they should be dealing with instances
>>>> of cats or animals
>>>>
>>>> otherwise you are simply misrepresenting your data
>>>> :o)
>>>

[Cameron Smith-6]

+1 for keeping the jars in.  there is already work in progress to rename jars to include version numbers, and most of the jars are not that big.  The time and error-risk involved with any kind of clever jar insertion stuff, far outweighs the marginal extra cost we pay our ISP to download a big OFBiz zip which works "out of the box".  (well, pretty close).

cameron

----- Original Message ----
From: David E Jones <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; Tom Anderson <[hidden email]>; Si Chen <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 5 January, 2007 8:36:16 PM
Subject: Re: Starting and completing a production run


On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Whoa! You checked in even the library jars? Could've kept a mere 1-
> liner document specifying which library version (fop, velocity,  
> json, etc) is "tested and approved" with the current revision, and  
> then kept the actual jar file somewhere else in a file server.

Wouldn't that be a royal pain? I would certainly hate adding in  
dozens of jars manually, and for people just getting started... maybe  
I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at...

-David





Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[jonwimp]

Sorry, I realized that my description below seems to indicate that Jacopo's service
getManufacturingComponents has an error. That isn't true.

I meant Financials module's LedgerServices::postRawMaterialIssuancesToGl() bombs, not the service
getManufacturingComponents. The postRawMaterialIssuancesToGl() function calls
UtilCOGS::getProductAverageCost().

It's not a problem with service getManufacturingComponents, or with calculateProductCosts. The
point of failure in Financials module's UtilCOGS::getProductAverageCost() is due to the fact that
the calculated cost is zero. Why zero? Because ETH_BRAND has no BOM components! (Jacopo has told
me that the service calculateProductCosts CAN return value of zero, not a bug there.)

If it's not too much trouble, could somebody enlighten me on the actual processes that goes on
inside service calculateProductCosts? It's called with parameters productId, currencyUomId,
costComponentTypePrefix, and userLogin. Specifically, I'd like to know exactly which numbers the
service will add up. Does it have to look into the product's BOM components? If there's a way for
the service to return a non-zero value, we can work around Financials module's
UtilCOGS::getProductAverageCost(). Does the service look at standard prices/costs for the product?

I'll ask on OpenTaps forums about resolving this issue.

Jonathon

Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David,
>
>> Yes, if you're having problems the _first_ thing you should do is try
>> it with the latest OFBiz from SVN, and without the OSS financials or
>> crmsfa modules in place.
>
> OFBiz works. Yes, you're right (Jacopo too) that this has something to
> do with OpenTaps' financial module. Nothing in the docs yet. Si Chen
> said on the financial forums that configuration instructions are in
> "Users Manual...Financials, Managing Inventory document". There's a
> UserDocs.htm and TechnicalDocs.htm in /hot-deploy/financial/docs, but
> they don't contain a section on "Managing Inventory".
>
> It all comes down to 2 paths taken by financial module upon issuance of
> component in Job Shop (after starting routing task), taken by
> UtilsCOGS::getProductAverageCost(). The entity "ProductAverageCost" will
> be searched first, failing which the product module service
> "calculateProductCosts" will be called, which in turn gets to BOM
> service "getManufacturingComponents". That's where it bombs, because
> ETH_BRAND has no BOM components.
>
> The only place where records for entity ProductAverageCost is ever
> created is in financial module service
> "financials.ImportProductInventory". I can't see where this service is
> evered invoked.
>
> Well, results are out. I'm left with few(er) options. I can try to buy
> Si Chen lunch or flowers or something, or I'll have to dig through the
> financials docs again (or hire a psychic to help?). The only answer to a
> similar "unable to find a product average cost" error posted to the
> financial forums yielded a 1-liner answer: look through docs. I
> think/hope that means few people have had the same problem and that it's
> really a non-problem.
>
> Si Chen just kinda complained that I was being not humble in the mailing
> list. So, I'd like to publicly apologize to Si Chen. I have no time to
> space out messages that goes like "OpenTaps does not have this, or
> that", only time enough to speak the facts quickly to seek help. Sorry!
>
> I'll certainly carefully and correctly segregate my posts between OFBiz
> list and OpenTaps list.
>
> That's it. This thread is resolved.
>
> Jonathon
>
>