Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

[taher]

I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with two
webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with one
webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and interdependencies.
I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
without a thorough review.

On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Inline...
>
> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge of
>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation is a
>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at SeoConfig.xml
>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>
> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better, than
> you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>
>>
>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it without
>>>
>> any risk?
>>
>> I don't understand this question.
>>
>
> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the web
> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent them to
> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers (Google,
> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>
>
>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>
>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed but
>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier codebase.
>>
>
> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to end
> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>
> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>
> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches that now
>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't make
>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>
>
> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from OFBIZ-5312
> content
>
> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the mess
>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>> never
>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something committed
>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to start
>> it's
>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>
>
> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did it a
> way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an alternative.
> For me it's a better solution.
>
>
>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>
>> default :/
>>
>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm against
>> any
>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>
>
> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to clean it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>
>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good argument
>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like to
>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>
>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>
>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>> default :/
>>>
>>> Compare
>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>> with
>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>
>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other users
>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce webapps and
>>>> my
>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote that
>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and well
>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make that
>>>> much
>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no wonder
>>>> it
>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one doesn't
>>>> exist
>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it and/or
>>>> use
>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>
>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=project
>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?  I
>>>>>
>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual implementation
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>> com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo a
>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to
>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>

[taher]

Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps

On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with two
> webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with one
> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and interdependencies.
> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
> without a thorough review.
>
> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Inline...
>>
>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>
>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge of
>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation is
>>> a
>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at
>>> SeoConfig.xml
>>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>>
>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better,
>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>>
>>>
>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it without
>>>>
>>> any risk?
>>>
>>> I don't understand this question.
>>>
>>
>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the web
>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent them to
>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers (Google,
>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
>> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>>
>>
>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>>
>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed but
>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier
>>> codebase.
>>>
>>
>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to end
>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>>
>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>>
>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches that
>>> now
>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't make
>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from OFBIZ-5312
>> content
>>
>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the
>>> mess
>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>>> never
>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something
>>> committed
>>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to start
>>> it's
>>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>>
>>
>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did it
>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an
>> alternative. For me it's a better solution.
>>
>>
>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>
>>> default :/
>>>
>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm against
>>> any
>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>>
>>
>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to clean
>> it.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>
>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>>
>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good
>>>> argument
>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like to
>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>>
>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>> default :/
>>>>
>>>> Compare
>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>>> with
>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other
>>>>> users
>>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce webapps
>>>>> and
>>>>> my
>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote that
>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and well
>>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make that
>>>>> much
>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no wonder
>>>>> it
>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one doesn't
>>>>> exist
>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it and/or
>>>>> use
>>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=project
>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?  I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual implementation
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>>> com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo a
>>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to
>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>

[Michael Brohl-3]

Jacques,

I must say that I don't like this action.

I have re-read the discussion you had with Scott about this subject and
also briefly read the discussions in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312 (huge!).

There were strong objections against this change. I must say the
discussion in OFBIZ-5312 was not done very well on both sides in
OFBIZ-5312. There were only standpoints and few attempts to really
explain the functionality (existing vs. new) and lacks a documentation
of what is changed and why. I also had the expression that there were
several developers trying to stitch together artifacts from other
projects, see mainly Oct. 2013.

Despite Scott's objections against the use of ecomseo as the default
ecommerce app and also no other voices to second your proposal, you
changed the default. I cannot see why you asked for opinions and then
act against the only opinion you get after a while?

There was no reason to force this. Nothing was broken and there were
also no voices who strongly wanted the change in the last months, if I
recall correctly. The only thing you achieve might be confusing users
who experience an ecommerce demo with different behaviour regarding URLs.

I second Scott's approach to take the time to thoroughly analyze the
different URL generation/"SEO" approaches in both implementations and
merge them in a best-of-breed solution. That requires hard work in
understanding everything and might take a while.

Additionally, we should first have a catalogue of substantiated
requirements and match them against these implementations.

You mentioned that there was work done with the consultation of a SEO
expert. It would be great if he could give input about the requirements
on which the ecomseo implementation was done.

I propose to revert this change and start over with the above mentioned
steps first before anything is changed again.

Best regards,

Michael


Am 18.01.17 um 09:45 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

> I have done the change for R16.11.
>
> BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not
> official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?
>> It works well for me.
>>> Have you deployed it to any production instances?
>> Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo
>>> Has anyone else?
>> At least
>> https://www.buchhandel.de/
>> https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
>> I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux
>>> <[hidden email]
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo a
>>>> clone
>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+
>>>> Engine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>
>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to
>>>> somehow
>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>
>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big changes,
>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

[Shi Jinghai-3]

+1.

SEO is very important for ecommerce websites. When I implemented it, Jonathan Schikowski offered me many principles of SEO, it's not a function only, it's more a protocol OFBiz talks with a search engine.

I think setting ecomseo as default entrance of ecommerce will more users know OFBiz has SEO OOTB, and we are easy to get more inputs on how to improve it.

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
发送时间: 2017年1月25日 1:57
收件人: [hidden email]
主题: Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce

I'm all for that. Using ecomseo instead of ecommerce, I mean. But when I proposed so, Anil refused and I went with this solution. For details see https://s.apache.org/UVqw

Actually as a diff between the 2 web.xml files shows there are also a bunch of other changes with the new filters and servlets, but yes that's pretty much it.

Sincerely, it was "some" work to come to this accommodation as OFBIZ-5312 history shows. From the ilscipio team which Paul represent, Jinghai and I. I also thanks Sebastian, Ingo and Josip, who helped in initial tests.

Jacques


Le 22/01/2017 à 23:03, Scott Gray a écrit :

> If there was a change to be made, it should have been to work on
> moving ecomseo into ecommerce.  There's not really any good reason for
> both of them to exist when the only differences between the webapps
> are the web.xml files.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 23 January 2017 at 10:44, Jacques Le Roux
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll answer your questions step by step. I just need time...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 22/01/2017 à 22:01, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>
>>> 1. Ask for input
>>> 2. Get no responses except a -1
>>> 3. Wait for a few months
>>> 4. Proceed anyway without further discussion
>>>
>>> In future it might be quicker to just skip step 1.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 23 January 2017 at 02:06, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Done, I have added links for developers
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 18/01/2017 à 09:45, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I have done the change for R16.11.
>>>>> BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not
>>>>> official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works
>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It works well for me.
>>>>>> Have you deployed it to any production instances?
>>>>>>> Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo
>>>>>> Has anyone else?
>>>>>>> At least
>>>>>> https://www.buchhandel.de/
>>>>>> https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
>>>>>> I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have
>>>>>>>> ecomseo a clone of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+
>>>>>>>> Engine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly
>>>>>>>> to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>> changes, apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

[Paul Foxworthy]

On 25 January 2017 at 07:12, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
wrote:


> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the web
> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent them to
> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
> this aspect.
>

Are you saying that there are more differences between ecommerce and
ecomseo than just the format of the URLs, and that those other differences
lead to a security flaw in ecommerce? If that is right, shouldn't the flaw
be fixed in its own right, as a separate issue from the exact format of
URLs?

Thanks

Paul

--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Australia

Phone: [phone]
Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
Email: [hidden email]

[Jacques Le Roux]

Michael,


Le 24/01/2017 à 22:21, Michael Brohl a écrit :

> Jacques,
>
> I must say that I don't like this action.
>
> I have re-read the discussion you had with Scott about this subject and also briefly read the discussions in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312 (huge!).
>
> There were strong objections against this change. I must say the discussion in OFBIZ-5312 was not done very well on both sides in OFBIZ-5312. There
> were only standpoints and few attempts to really explain the functionality (existing vs. new) and lacks a documentation of what is changed and why.
> I also had the expression that there were several developers trying to stitch together artifacts from other projects, see mainly Oct. 2013.
>
> Despite Scott's objections against the use of ecomseo as the default ecommerce app and also no other voices to second your proposal, you changed the
> default. I cannot see why you asked for opinions and then act against the only opinion you get after a while?

After some months, I simply forgot Scott's answer a got ahead, human error.

>
> There was no reason to force this. Nothing was broken and there were also no voices who strongly wanted the change in the last months, if I recall
> correctly. The only thing you achieve might be confusing users who experience an ecommerce demo with different behaviour regarding URLs.

Did you try it? I believe users would prefer ecomseo against ecommerce/control/main, etc.

>
> I second Scott's approach to take the time to thoroughly analyze the different URL generation/"SEO" approaches in both implementations and merge
> them in a best-of-breed solution. That requires hard work in understanding everything and might take a while.

I also can agree on this

>
> Additionally, we should first have a catalogue of substantiated requirements and match them against these implementations.

Looking forward for help from the community

>
> You mentioned that there was work done with the consultation of a SEO expert. It would be great if he could give input about the requirements on
> which the ecomseo implementation was done.

I'll ask him

>
> I propose to revert this change and start over with the above mentioned steps first before anything is changed again.

Done for R16.11, I kept the trunk since I just added it and it's a good way to compare with stable

Jacques

>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 18.01.17 um 09:45 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>> I have done the change for R16.11.
>>
>> BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?
>>> It works well for me.
>>>> Have you deployed it to any production instances?
>>> Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo
>>>> Has anyone else?
>>> At least
>>> https://www.buchhandel.de/
>>> https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
>>> I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo a clone
>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+
>>>>> Engine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to somehow
>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big changes,
>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.

If you both think it's a valid argument against ecomseo then what  about

accounting, ar and ap webapps in accounting component

ofbizsetup and ordermgr-js webapps in commonext component

content and contentimages in content component

marketing and sfa in marketing component

facility and catalog in product component

ical and workeffort in workeffort component

What are your plans for those? We might decide to change that but it's so far a feature not a bug.

We dropped the ecomclone which was just showing how to reuse a webapp in another webapp. I agreed about dropping it because ecomseo was also showing
the same feature. We can simply document it w/o showing an example in code. I would not be against but we then need to document it in both readme and
wiki.

Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only" need
to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the best.

I think, but have not tested, that you can use content in ecomseo has it was abruptly advocated by Hans[1] and Anil[2]. Else we can merge this feature
from ecommerce to ecomseo filters and servlet.

BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers and sorry to say but I think the best answer then was from the regretted Adrian[3]

Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything anymore, well done experts!

So you see there is some resentments about this.

Yes, people worked hard to contribute it with some other main features like "Solr" OFBIZ-5042

But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or the project, which is only what I have in mind.

Jacques
[1] http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-URL-Generation-Changes-tp4639289p4639294.html
[2]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedCommentId=13939116&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
[3]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedCommentId=13942316&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13942316
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_ERP
[5] http://www.scipioerp.com/

Le 24/01/2017 à 21:24, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

> Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps
>
> On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
>> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with two
>> webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with one
>> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and interdependencies.
>> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
>> without a thorough review.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Inline...
>>>
>>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>
>>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge of
>>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation is
>>>> a
>>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at
>>>> SeoConfig.xml
>>>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>>>
>>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
>>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better,
>>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>>>
>>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it without
>>>> any risk?
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand this question.
>>>>
>>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the web
>>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent them to
>>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
>>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers (Google,
>>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
>>> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed but
>>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier
>>>> codebase.
>>>>
>>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
>>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to end
>>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>>>
>>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>>>
>>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches that
>>>> now
>>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't make
>>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from OFBIZ-5312
>>> content
>>>
>>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the
>>>> mess
>>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>>>> never
>>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something
>>>> committed
>>>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to start
>>>> it's
>>>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>>>
>>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did it
>>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an
>>> alternative. For me it's a better solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>> default :/
>>>>
>>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm against
>>>> any
>>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>>>
>>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to clean
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good
>>>>> argument
>>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like to
>>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>>>
>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>> default :/
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare
>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>>>> with
>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other
>>>>>> users
>>>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce webapps
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote that
>>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and well
>>>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make that
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no wonder
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one doesn't
>>>>>> exist
>>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it and/or
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=project
>>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?  I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual implementation
>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>>>> com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo a
>>>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to
>>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Jinghai!

Happy you referred to Jonathan, I was then just asking him some help here :)

Jacques


Le 25/01/2017 à 02:30, Shi Jinghai a écrit :

> +1.
>
> SEO is very important for ecommerce websites. When I implemented it, Jonathan Schikowski offered me many principles of SEO, it's not a function only, it's more a protocol OFBiz talks with a search engine.
>
> I think setting ecomseo as default entrance of ecommerce will more users know OFBiz has SEO OOTB, and we are easy to get more inputs on how to improve it.
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> 发送时间: 2017年1月25日 1:57
> 收件人: [hidden email]
> 主题: Re: Use ecomseo on demo rather than ecommerce
>
> I'm all for that. Using ecomseo instead of ecommerce, I mean. But when I proposed so, Anil refused and I went with this solution. For details see https://s.apache.org/UVqw
>
> Actually as a diff between the 2 web.xml files shows there are also a bunch of other changes with the new filters and servlets, but yes that's pretty much it.
>
> Sincerely, it was "some" work to come to this accommodation as OFBIZ-5312 history shows. From the ilscipio team which Paul represent, Jinghai and I. I also thanks Sebastian, Ingo and Josip, who helped in initial tests.
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 22/01/2017 à 23:03, Scott Gray a écrit :
>> If there was a change to be made, it should have been to work on
>> moving ecomseo into ecommerce.  There's not really any good reason for
>> both of them to exist when the only differences between the webapps
>> are the web.xml files.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 23 January 2017 at 10:44, Jacques Le Roux
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I'll answer your questions step by step. I just need time...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 22/01/2017 à 22:01, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>
>>>> 1. Ask for input
>>>> 2. Get no responses except a -1
>>>> 3. Wait for a few months
>>>> 4. Proceed anyway without further discussion
>>>>
>>>> In future it might be quicker to just skip step 1.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 23 January 2017 at 02:06, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Done, I have added links for developers
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 18/01/2017 à 09:45, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I have done the change for R16.11.
>>>>>> BTW, trunk demo has no official link, should we not add one (not
>>>>>> official?) somewhere in the site or the wiki?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 14:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:22, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It works well for me.
>>>>>>> Have you deployed it to any production instances?
>>>>>>>> Not directly, that's why I want it as default OFBiz demo
>>>>>>> Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>> At least
>>>>>>> https://www.buchhandel.de/
>>>>>>> https://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2
>>>>>>> I guess you can find more starting from  OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have
>>>>>>>>> ecomseo a clone of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+
>>>>>>>>> Engine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly
>>>>>>>>> to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>> changes, apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 25/01/2017 à 03:56, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :

> On 25 January 2017 at 07:12, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the web
>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent them to
>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
>> this aspect.
>>
> Are you saying that there are more differences between ecommerce and
> ecomseo than just the format of the URLs, and that those other differences
> lead to a security flaw in ecommerce? If that is right, shouldn't the flaw
> be fixed in its own right, as a separate issue from the exact format of
> URLs?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>

Hi Paul,

No it's not a security flaw, just that spiders will do a better job using ecomseo and there are other features.
I have asked Jonathan Schikowski on Tweeter https://twitter.com/schikowski?lang=fr who is the SEO expert I referred too if he can help me explain details

I'll also start a thread here

Jacque

[taher]

Hi Jacques,

I think you might be mixing up "multiple webapps" with "duplicate /
entangled webapps" in your examples. Yes we probably have other things to
get rid of, but I think we should avoid working in the direction of
increasing the entanglements instead of fixing root causes.

Also I don't see the point of bringing comments about a different
discussion and references to a fork of OFBiz to this discussion and rant
about it?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>
> If you both think it's a valid argument against ecomseo then what  about
>
> accounting, ar and ap webapps in accounting component
>
> ofbizsetup and ordermgr-js webapps in commonext component
>
> content and contentimages in content component
>
> marketing and sfa in marketing component
>
> facility and catalog in product component
>
> ical and workeffort in workeffort component
>
> What are your plans for those? We might decide to change that but it's so
> far a feature not a bug.
>
> We dropped the ecomclone which was just showing how to reuse a webapp in
> another webapp. I agreed about dropping it because ecomseo was also showing
> the same feature. We can simply document it w/o showing an example in code.
> I would not be against but we then need to document it in both readme and
> wiki.
>
> Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we
> need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only"
> need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the
> best.
>
> I think, but have not tested, that you can use content in ecomseo has it
> was abruptly advocated by Hans[1] and Anil[2]. Else we can merge this
> feature from ecommerce to ecomseo filters and servlet.
>
> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers and sorry to
> say but I think the best answer then was from the regretted Adrian[3]
>
> Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything
> anymore, well done experts!
>
> So you see there is some resentments about this.
>
> Yes, people worked hard to contribute it with some other main features
> like "Solr" OFBIZ-5042
>
> But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or the
> project, which is only what I have in mind.
>
> Jacques
> [1] http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-URL-Generation-Ch
> anges-tp4639289p4639294.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
> entId=13939116&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
> entId=13942316&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13942316
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_ERP
> [5] http://www.scipioerp.com/
>
>
> Le 24/01/2017 à 21:24, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>
>> Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
>>> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with two
>>> webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with
>>> one
>>> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and
>>> interdependencies.
>>> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
>>> without a thorough review.
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Inline...
>>>>
>>>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge of
>>>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation
>>>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at
>>>>> SeoConfig.xml
>>>>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
>>>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better,
>>>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>>>>
>>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it without
>>>>> any risk?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand this question.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the
>>>> web
>>>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent
>>>> them to
>>>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
>>>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers
>>>> (Google,
>>>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
>>>> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed but
>>>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>>>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier
>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
>>>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to
>>>> end
>>>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>>>>
>>>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches that
>>>>
>>>>> now
>>>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't
>>>>> make
>>>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from OFBIZ-5312
>>>> content
>>>>
>>>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the
>>>>
>>>>> mess
>>>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>>>>> never
>>>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something
>>>>> committed
>>>>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to start
>>>>> it's
>>>>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did
>>>> it
>>>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an
>>>> alternative. For me it's a better solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>> default :/
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm against
>>>>> any
>>>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to clean
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good
>>>>>> argument
>>>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd
>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare
>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce webapps
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make that
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no
>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one doesn't
>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it
>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=project
>>>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?  I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual
>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>>>>> com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to
>>>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

Hi Jacques,

please see inline:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>
[...]

> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers
>
[...]

> Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything
> anymore, well done experts!
>
[...]

> So you see there is some resentments about this.
>
[...]

I have extracted some the sentences above from your message because I think
they are a bad example of dealing with disagreement: they do not add any
useful technical content and are going to raise the temperature of the
thread and maybe resurrect an years old and ugly discussion.
Not useful at all.

On the other hand:


> Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we
> need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only"
> need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the
> best.

[...] But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or
> the project, which is only what I have in mind.


with the two sentences above you have provided a good summary of what I
consider a positive and productive output of this discussion and also a
message that shows a positive attitude.

My advice, for you and others interested in this thread, is to focus on the
latter and refrain from commenting on the former.

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Jacopo,

Sorry, but some facts can't sometimes be avoided. Here I think they help others to better understand ecomseo history.

But you are right, better to focus on going ahead together.

For instance I really appreciate Paul's (Foxworthy) last answer on OFBIZ-5312 https://s.apache.org/fN7R, that's productive!

Jacques


Le 25/01/2017 à 08:23, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> Hi Jacques,
>
> please see inline:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>>
> [...]
>
>> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers
>>
> [...]
>
>> Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything
>> anymore, well done experts!
>>
> [...]
>
>> So you see there is some resentments about this.
>>
> [...]
>
> I have extracted some the sentences above from your message because I think
> they are a bad example of dealing with disagreement: they do not add any
> useful technical content and are going to raise the temperature of the
> thread and maybe resurrect an years old and ugly discussion.
> Not useful at all.
>
> On the other hand:
>
>
>> Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we
>> need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only"
>> need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the
>> best.
> [...] But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or
>> the project, which is only what I have in mind.
>
> with the two sentences above you have provided a good summary of what I
> consider a positive and productive output of this discussion and also a
> message that shows a positive attitude.
>
> My advice, for you and others interested in this thread, is to focus on the
> latter and refrain from commenting on the former.
>
> Jacopo
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Taher,

Le 25/01/2017 à 08:03, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> I think you might be mixing up "multiple webapps" with "duplicate /
> entangled webapps" in your examples. Yes we probably have other things to
> get rid of, but I think we should avoid working in the direction of
> increasing the entanglements instead of fixing root causes.

Sincerely I was really proud of myself when I thought about and implemented this solution (then temporary in my mind). When Anil kinda imposed a veto
on ecomseo and I had no time to prove that we could still use the contents way with ecomseo.

I still see it as something very clean which allows to easily compare the 2 solutions w/o any burden on the legacy.

Anyway, my intention was then indeed to compare and argument to replace the ecommerce webapp by ecomseo (which would then be renamed ecommerce). It
seems we are ready for that, are we?


> Also I don't see the point of bringing comments about a different
> discussion and references to a fork of OFBiz to this discussion and rant
> about it?

Human, I'm an human not a robot.

This remembers a joke we had with Andrew Sykes in the early days. A lot of the code we still rely on has been writing by Andrew Zenesky (you cleaned
some of it). We were "wondering" if actually Andrew (Zenesky) was not actually a robot. Because of the speed he was writing code!

See? Human, "Community over code"[1][2] :)

Jacques
[1] http://communityovercode.com/
[2] http://theapacheway.com/

>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>>
>> If you both think it's a valid argument against ecomseo then what  about
>>
>> accounting, ar and ap webapps in accounting component
>>
>> ofbizsetup and ordermgr-js webapps in commonext component
>>
>> content and contentimages in content component
>>
>> marketing and sfa in marketing component
>>
>> facility and catalog in product component
>>
>> ical and workeffort in workeffort component
>>
>> What are your plans for those? We might decide to change that but it's so
>> far a feature not a bug.
>>
>> We dropped the ecomclone which was just showing how to reuse a webapp in
>> another webapp. I agreed about dropping it because ecomseo was also showing
>> the same feature. We can simply document it w/o showing an example in code.
>> I would not be against but we then need to document it in both readme and
>> wiki.
>>
>> Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we
>> need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only"
>> need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the
>> best.
>>
>> I think, but have not tested, that you can use content in ecomseo has it
>> was abruptly advocated by Hans[1] and Anil[2]. Else we can merge this
>> feature from ecommerce to ecomseo filters and servlet.
>>
>> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers and sorry to
>> say but I think the best answer then was from the regretted Adrian[3]
>>
>> Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything
>> anymore, well done experts!
>>
>> So you see there is some resentments about this.
>>
>> Yes, people worked hard to contribute it with some other main features
>> like "Solr" OFBIZ-5042
>>
>> But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or the
>> project, which is only what I have in mind.
>>
>> Jacques
>> [1] http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-URL-Generation-Ch
>> anges-tp4639289p4639294.html
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
>> entId=13939116&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
>> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
>> entId=13942316&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
>> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13942316
>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_ERP
>> [5] http://www.scipioerp.com/
>>
>>
>> Le 24/01/2017 à 21:24, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>
>>> Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
>>>> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with two
>>>> webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with
>>>> one
>>>> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and
>>>> interdependencies.
>>>> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
>>>> without a thorough review.
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Inline...
>>>>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge of
>>>>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at
>>>>>> SeoConfig.xml
>>>>>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
>>>>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better,
>>>>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it without
>>>>>> any risk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand this question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the
>>>>> web
>>>>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent
>>>>> them to
>>>>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce on
>>>>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers
>>>>> (Google,
>>>>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
>>>>> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd say.
>>>>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed but
>>>>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>>>>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier
>>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
>>>>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to
>>>>> end
>>>>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches that
>>>>>
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from OFBIZ-5312
>>>>> content
>>>>>
>>>>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the
>>>>>
>>>>>> mess
>>>>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something
>>>>>> committed
>>>>>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to start
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did
>>>>> it
>>>>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an
>>>>> alternative. For me it's a better solution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm against
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to clean
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good
>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd
>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare
>>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce webapps
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and
>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make that
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no
>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one doesn't
>>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it
>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=project
>>>>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?  I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual
>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>>>>>> com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works well
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have ecomseo
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly to
>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

[taher]

Jacques I'm lost! The message we are discussing is how to handle the two
ecommerce webapps, and you are going all over the place by talking about
things like:

- a historical argument about ecomseo
- an OFBiz fork
- community over code
- human

What does all of the above have to do with what we are discussing?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Taher,
>
> Le 25/01/2017 à 08:03, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> I think you might be mixing up "multiple webapps" with "duplicate /
>> entangled webapps" in your examples. Yes we probably have other things to
>> get rid of, but I think we should avoid working in the direction of
>> increasing the entanglements instead of fixing root causes.
>>
>
> Sincerely I was really proud of myself when I thought about and
> implemented this solution (then temporary in my mind). When Anil kinda
> imposed a veto on ecomseo and I had no time to prove that we could still
> use the contents way with ecomseo.
>
> I still see it as something very clean which allows to easily compare the
> 2 solutions w/o any burden on the legacy.
>
> Anyway, my intention was then indeed to compare and argument to replace
> the ecommerce webapp by ecomseo (which would then be renamed ecommerce). It
> seems we are ready for that, are we?
>
>
> Also I don't see the point of bringing comments about a different
>> discussion and references to a fork of OFBiz to this discussion and rant
>> about it?
>>
>
> Human, I'm an human not a robot.
>
> This remembers a joke we had with Andrew Sykes in the early days. A lot of
> the code we still rely on has been writing by Andrew Zenesky (you cleaned
> some of it). We were "wondering" if actually Andrew (Zenesky) was not
> actually a robot. Because of the speed he was writing code!
>
> See? Human, "Community over code"[1][2] :)
>
> Jacques
> [1] http://communityovercode.com/
> [2] http://theapacheway.com/
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>>>
>>> If you both think it's a valid argument against ecomseo then what  about
>>>
>>> accounting, ar and ap webapps in accounting component
>>>
>>> ofbizsetup and ordermgr-js webapps in commonext component
>>>
>>> content and contentimages in content component
>>>
>>> marketing and sfa in marketing component
>>>
>>> facility and catalog in product component
>>>
>>> ical and workeffort in workeffort component
>>>
>>> What are your plans for those? We might decide to change that but it's so
>>> far a feature not a bug.
>>>
>>> We dropped the ecomclone which was just showing how to reuse a webapp in
>>> another webapp. I agreed about dropping it because ecomseo was also
>>> showing
>>> the same feature. We can simply document it w/o showing an example in
>>> code.
>>> I would not be against but we then need to document it in both readme and
>>> wiki.
>>>
>>> Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we
>>> need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only"
>>> need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the
>>> best.
>>>
>>> I think, but have not tested, that you can use content in ecomseo has it
>>> was abruptly advocated by Hans[1] and Anil[2]. Else we can merge this
>>> feature from ecommerce to ecomseo filters and servlet.
>>>
>>> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers and sorry to
>>> say but I think the best answer then was from the regretted Adrian[3]
>>>
>>> Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything
>>> anymore, well done experts!
>>>
>>> So you see there is some resentments about this.
>>>
>>> Yes, people worked hard to contribute it with some other main features
>>> like "Solr" OFBIZ-5042
>>>
>>> But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or the
>>> project, which is only what I have in mind.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>> [1] http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-URL-Generation-Ch
>>> anges-tp4639289p4639294.html
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
>>> entId=13939116&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
>>> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
>>> entId=13942316&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
>>> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13942316
>>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_ERP
>>> [5] http://www.scipioerp.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 24/01/2017 à 21:24, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>>
>>> Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
>>>>
>>>>> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with
>>>>> two
>>>>> webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with
>>>>> one
>>>>> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and
>>>>> interdependencies.
>>>>> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
>>>>> without a thorough review.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Inline...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at
>>>>>>> SeoConfig.xml
>>>>>>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better,
>>>>>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it
>>>>>> without
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any risk?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand this question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> web
>>>>>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent
>>>>>> them to
>>>>>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers
>>>>>> (Google,
>>>>>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
>>>>>> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd
>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>>>>>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier
>>>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from
>>>>>>> OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> content
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mess
>>>>>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something
>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to
>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an
>>>>>> alternative. For me it's a better solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to
>>>>>>> clean
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good
>>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd
>>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Compare
>>>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce
>>>>>>>>> webapps
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no
>>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one
>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it
>>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=proje
>>>>>>>>>> ct
>>>>>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott
>>>>>>>>>>> Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>>>>>>> com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works
>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> ecomseo
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but some facts can't sometimes be avoided. Here I think they help
> others to better understand ecomseo history.
>

Providing objective context information is useful; but some of your
sentences didn't achieve that goal.

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

You are right, it's time to start a new thread, this one is now too confusing.

Jonathan (Schikowski) just told me he will answer us today. I'll wait his answer to start this new thread. It will not be only about demos since it
seems we are ready to discuss of that again.

Also I just stumbled upon this "Ecommerce Portal Enhancement" Rishi's message by chance http://markmail.org/message/i35qxjelze2x4sja.

It shows there are interests in ecomseo and Rishi started with very useful elements I think and others added some also.

Jacques

Le 25/01/2017 à 09:29, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

> Jacques I'm lost! The message we are discussing is how to handle the two
> ecommerce webapps, and you are going all over the place by talking about
> things like:
>
> - a historical argument about ecomseo
> - an OFBiz fork
> - community over code
> - human
>
> What does all of the above have to do with what we are discussing?
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Taher,
>>
>> Le 25/01/2017 à 08:03, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> I think you might be mixing up "multiple webapps" with "duplicate /
>>> entangled webapps" in your examples. Yes we probably have other things to
>>> get rid of, but I think we should avoid working in the direction of
>>> increasing the entanglements instead of fixing root causes.
>>>
>> Sincerely I was really proud of myself when I thought about and
>> implemented this solution (then temporary in my mind). When Anil kinda
>> imposed a veto on ecomseo and I had no time to prove that we could still
>> use the contents way with ecomseo.
>>
>> I still see it as something very clean which allows to easily compare the
>> 2 solutions w/o any burden on the legacy.
>>
>> Anyway, my intention was then indeed to compare and argument to replace
>> the ecommerce webapp by ecomseo (which would then be renamed ecommerce). It
>> seems we are ready for that, are we?
>>
>>
>> Also I don't see the point of bringing comments about a different
>>> discussion and references to a fork of OFBiz to this discussion and rant
>>> about it?
>>>
>> Human, I'm an human not a robot.
>>
>> This remembers a joke we had with Andrew Sykes in the early days. A lot of
>> the code we still rely on has been writing by Andrew Zenesky (you cleaned
>> some of it). We were "wondering" if actually Andrew (Zenesky) was not
>> actually a robot. Because of the speed he was writing code!
>>
>> See? Human, "Community over code"[1][2] :)
>>
>> Jacques
>> [1] http://communityovercode.com/
>> [2] http://theapacheway.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This argument looks more like a witch hunt to me.
>>>> If you both think it's a valid argument against ecomseo then what  about
>>>>
>>>> accounting, ar and ap webapps in accounting component
>>>>
>>>> ofbizsetup and ordermgr-js webapps in commonext component
>>>>
>>>> content and contentimages in content component
>>>>
>>>> marketing and sfa in marketing component
>>>>
>>>> facility and catalog in product component
>>>>
>>>> ical and workeffort in workeffort component
>>>>
>>>> What are your plans for those? We might decide to change that but it's so
>>>> far a feature not a bug.
>>>>
>>>> We dropped the ecomclone which was just showing how to reuse a webapp in
>>>> another webapp. I agreed about dropping it because ecomseo was also
>>>> showing
>>>> the same feature. We can simply document it w/o showing an example in
>>>> code.
>>>> I would not be against but we then need to document it in both readme and
>>>> wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Now I can also agree about unifying the ecommerce component and then we
>>>> need to compare the 2 webapps which are very similar. Actually we "only"
>>>> need to compare the filters and servlets in both and decide which are the
>>>> best.
>>>>
>>>> I think, but have not tested, that you can use content in ecomseo has it
>>>> was abruptly advocated by Hans[1] and Anil[2]. Else we can merge this
>>>> feature from ecommerce to ecomseo filters and servlet.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I don't see good practises in Hans's and Anil's answers and sorry to
>>>> say but I think the best answer then was from the regretted Adrian[3]
>>>>
>>>> Since then ilscipio has its fork[4][5] and will not contribute anything
>>>> anymore, well done experts!
>>>>
>>>> So you see there is some resentments about this.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, people worked hard to contribute it with some other main features
>>>> like "Solr" OFBIZ-5042
>>>>
>>>> But I think we can go ahead and find a common ground for the best or the
>>>> project, which is only what I have in mind.
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>> [1] http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-URL-Generation-Ch
>>>> anges-tp4639289p4639294.html
>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
>>>> entId=13939116&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
>>>> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13939116
>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312?focusedComm
>>>> entId=13942316&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta
>>>> bpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13942316
>>>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_ERP
>>>> [5] http://www.scipioerp.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 24/01/2017 à 21:24, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Small correction, I meant one component with two webapps
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:21 PM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[hidden email]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to agree with Scott, the approach here is wrong in my opinion. My
>>>>>
>>>>>> definition of mess is simple: you should not have two components with
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> webapps.  A real root solution is to unify the ecommerce component with
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> webapp exposed instead of having all this hairy code and
>>>>>> interdependencies.
>>>>>> I also think this should be discussed more rather than just committed
>>>>>> without a thorough review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017 11:12 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inline...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 24/09/2016 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're asking for opinions and I can't give one without any knowledge
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this feature so I'm simply telling you that the lack of documentation
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> hindrance to evaluation and adoption. I took a quick look at
>>>>>>>> SeoConfig.xml
>>>>>>>> and have no idea what most of it does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't need to change SeoConfig.xml by default.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that the comment there are not worse, and even better,
>>>>>>> than you generally find in such config or properties files in OFBiz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you not like to have spiders bots continuously crawling it
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any risk?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't understand this question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you know that most of the spiders bots which are crawling the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>> are not doing for the good of websites and users. Better to prevent
>>>>>>> them to
>>>>>>> hurt in any way. OOTB the ecomseo webapp is better than the ecommerce
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> this aspect. And it's also better with and for valuable crawlers
>>>>>>> (Google,
>>>>>>> DuckDuckGo, youNameIt...). Pour demo instances and OFBiz OOTB at large
>>>>>>> would benefit from using only ecomseo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd
>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It should have been the first step before any of this was committed
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> instead you pushed ahead and committed it as an alternative despite
>>>>>>>> objections so now we have duplicated functionality and a messier
>>>>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though I did not test it I don't think it prevents to use the content
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> component in anyway as feared Hans and Anil. I just put it besides to
>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>> the discussion then, having other stuff to do...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think we have a messier codebase?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was going to list out the current set of possible SEO approaches
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> exist in the codebase but it's all such an overlapping mess I can't
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> sense of it without spending too much time trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree we need to document that better, starting from
>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People need to stop adding things they can't get consensus on, IMO the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mess
>>>>>>>> that results is worse for the project than any missing feature.  I'll
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> understand why some committers are so desperate to see something
>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>> that they'll push forward at any cost.  Not every feature has to
>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> life in the OFBiz repo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wanted this committed because it's ecommerce webapp improved. I did
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> a way that did not hurt the legacy situation. It just offered an
>>>>>>> alternative. For me it's a better solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not the deciding factor in this discussion for me.  I'm
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> change to the status quo until we get this mess cleaned up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like you to define what the mess is and how you would want to
>>>>>>>> clean
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 20:34, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course there are real world users, did you see the references?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we have a such document for ecommerce? No, so It's not a good
>>>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>>>> to not switch the demo from ecommerce to ecomseo. Would you not like
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> have spiders bots continuously crawling it without any risk?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Replacing ecommerce by ecomseo is another matter, another step I'd
>>>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I'm surprised that you prefer to have "/control/" in each URL by
>>>>>>>>> default :/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Compare
>>>>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecomseo
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> https://ofbiz-vm.apache.org:8443/ecommerce/control/main
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le 23/09/2016 à 01:15, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well for me it's a -1 until I hear some positive reviews from other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> (and ideally committers).  I don't like having two ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>> webapps
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> preference would be to merge the two into one, but I can't promote
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> idea without any group consensus that the SEO approach is good and
>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>> architected.  A document describing the architecture would make
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> easier and I'm amazed one wasn't supplied with the proposal, no
>>>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> sat there without much attention for so long.  But since one
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>>>>> we'll just have to wait until people have time/care to review it
>>>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> it and provide feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 23 September 2016 at 00:07, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>>>>>>>>>> More athttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2214?jql=proje
>>>>>>>>>>> ct
>>>>>>>>>>> %20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22seo%22
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2016 à 13:25, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, is there any technical or user documentation for it?
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at it and don't have time to review the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>>>> now.  The link you provided doesn't offer much more than a sales
>>>>>>>>>>>> pitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2016 at 23:22, Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gray<scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This mostly to somehow battle test it, even if I know it works
>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So does it need battle testing or does it work well?  Have you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any production instances?  Has anyone else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 01:27, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know about or did not try it, but we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecomseo
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ecommerce component tailored for SEO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Search+Eng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ine+Optimisation,+SEO+in+ecommerce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to use it as the default ecommerce demo. This mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battle test it, even if I know it works well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As it's based on ecommerce, users should not experience a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apart the changed URLs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 25/01/2017 à 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> Sorry, but some facts can't sometimes be avoided. Here I think they help
>> others to better understand ecomseo history.
>>
> Providing objective context information is useful; but some of your
> sentences didn't achieve that goal.
>
> Jacopo
>

Right! Humans make errors :)

Jacques

[Michael Brohl-3]

Hi Jacques,

inline...

Am 25.01.17 um 10:04 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
> You are right, it's time to start a new thread, this one is now too
> confusing.
>
> Jonathan (Schikowski) just told me he will answer us today. I'll wait
> his answer to start this new thread. It will not be only about demos
> since it seems we are ready to discuss of that again.
It's a good approach to start with a fresh discussion and to collect the
requirements.

Starting from that, we should analyze what can be used from standard
OFBiz to meet these requirements, what's been missing and what should be
changed. I hope that Anil can help us there, he had a strong opinion in
the discussions of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312

We should also analyze the ecomseo approach and see what it adds to
solve the requirements. The original contributors might be of help to
explain why they have chosen this approach.

I'm in favor to stay as objective as possible to get the best out of the
contributions. A "my solution is better than yours" discussion does not
help.

We should also expect that it will take some time to collect and discuss
everything and should not force it to a quick solution. That won't help
either.

And we must be focused leaving out sidenotes or widening the topic too
far from the main topic. That will only lead to confusion and possibly
end discussions without result.

A wiki page might help to note and summarize the findings of the
conceptual work and to give contributors an overview (instead of digging
through a long email thread).

>
> Also I just stumbled upon this "Ecommerce Portal Enhancement" Rishi's
> message by chance http://markmail.org/message/i35qxjelze2x4sja.
>
> It shows there are interests in ecomseo and Rishi started with very
> useful elements I think and others added some also.
It's an interesting discussion but we should not pull it into this topic
(see above).

>
> Jacques
>
Regards,
Michael

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Michael,

Your message is stamped by the by the seal of reason

BTW about stamping, Thunderbird tells me that your email certificate is invalid (was OK yesterday)

Jacques


Le 25/01/2017 à 15:58, Michael Brohl a écrit :

> Hi Jacques,
>
> inline...
>
> Am 25.01.17 um 10:04 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>> You are right, it's time to start a new thread, this one is now too confusing.
>>
>> Jonathan (Schikowski) just told me he will answer us today. I'll wait his answer to start this new thread. It will not be only about demos since it
>> seems we are ready to discuss of that again.
> It's a good approach to start with a fresh discussion and to collect the requirements.
>
> Starting from that, we should analyze what can be used from standard OFBiz to meet these requirements, what's been missing and what should be
> changed. I hope that Anil can help us there, he had a strong opinion in the discussions of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>
> We should also analyze the ecomseo approach and see what it adds to solve the requirements. The original contributors might be of help to explain
> why they have chosen this approach.
>
> I'm in favor to stay as objective as possible to get the best out of the contributions. A "my solution is better than yours" discussion does not help.
>
> We should also expect that it will take some time to collect and discuss everything and should not force it to a quick solution. That won't help
> either.
>
> And we must be focused leaving out sidenotes or widening the topic too far from the main topic. That will only lead to confusion and possibly end
> discussions without result.
>
> A wiki page might help to note and summarize the findings of the conceptual work and to give contributors an overview (instead of digging through a
> long email thread).
>
>>
>> Also I just stumbled upon this "Ecommerce Portal Enhancement" Rishi's message by chance http://markmail.org/message/i35qxjelze2x4sja.
>>
>> It shows there are interests in ecomseo and Rishi started with very useful elements I think and others added some also.
> It's an interesting discussion but we should not pull it into this topic (see above).
>
>>
>> Jacques
>>
> Regards,
> Michael
>

[Michael Brohl-3]

*sigh*

That is completely off topic, Jacques...


Am 25.01.17 um 20:48 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

> Thanks Michael,
>
> Your message is stamped by the by the seal of reason
>
> BTW about stamping, Thunderbird tells me that your email certificate
> is invalid (was OK yesterday)
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 25/01/2017 à 15:58, Michael Brohl a écrit :
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> inline...
>>
>> Am 25.01.17 um 10:04 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>>> You are right, it's time to start a new thread, this one is now too
>>> confusing.
>>>
>>> Jonathan (Schikowski) just told me he will answer us today. I'll
>>> wait his answer to start this new thread. It will not be only about
>>> demos since it seems we are ready to discuss of that again.
>> It's a good approach to start with a fresh discussion and to collect
>> the requirements.
>>
>> Starting from that, we should analyze what can be used from standard
>> OFBiz to meet these requirements, what's been missing and what should
>> be changed. I hope that Anil can help us there, he had a strong
>> opinion in the discussions of
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5312
>>
>> We should also analyze the ecomseo approach and see what it adds to
>> solve the requirements. The original contributors might be of help to
>> explain why they have chosen this approach.
>>
>> I'm in favor to stay as objective as possible to get the best out of
>> the contributions. A "my solution is better than yours" discussion
>> does not help.
>>
>> We should also expect that it will take some time to collect and
>> discuss everything and should not force it to a quick solution. That
>> won't help either.
>>
>> And we must be focused leaving out sidenotes or widening the topic
>> too far from the main topic. That will only lead to confusion and
>> possibly end discussions without result.
>>
>> A wiki page might help to note and summarize the findings of the
>> conceptual work and to give contributors an overview (instead of
>> digging through a long email thread).
>>
>>>
>>> Also I just stumbled upon this "Ecommerce Portal Enhancement"
>>> Rishi's message by chance http://markmail.org/message/i35qxjelze2x4sja.
>>>
>>> It shows there are interests in ecomseo and Rishi started with very
>>> useful elements I think and others added some also.
>> It's an interesting discussion but we should not pull it into this
>> topic (see above).
>>
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>
>