VOTE: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui

[Nicolas Malin-2]

I confirm, thanks Adrian for this !

Nicolas

Le 30/04/2015 10:15, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Thanks for the initiative Adrian!
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 30/04/2015 09:55, Adrian Crum a écrit :
>> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many
>> replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my
>> best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>>
>> PMC Members (Binding)
>> ---------------------
>> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
>> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
>> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>>
>>
>> Others (non-Binding)
>> --------------------
>> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
>> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>>
>> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>>
>> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to
>> explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I
>> will consider this vote closed.
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing some
>>> (or
>>> all) of OFBiz with Moqui (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
>>>
>>> To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
>>> following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
>>>
>>> Entity Engine
>>> Service Engine
>>> Security
>>>
>>> Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
>>> think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful, then
>>> more of OFBiz can be converted later.
>>>
>>> I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve compatibility
>>> problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it here in
>>> case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
>>>
>>

[Michael Brohl-3]

Thank you, Adrian for taking this effort and starting the discussion.

I know it's not binding and it does not change the vote's result, but
you missed my vote (sent 26.April 19:39).

Regards,

Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH
www.ecomify.de

Am 30.04.15 um 09:55 schrieb Adrian Crum:

> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many
> replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my
> best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>
> PMC Members (Binding)
> ---------------------
> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>
>
> Others (non-Binding)
> --------------------
> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>
> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>
> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to
> explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I
> will consider this vote closed.
>
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>

[Ron Wheeler]

My point was about the suggestion that you might want to add it as a TLP
in ASF but there were concerns about the amount of effort to start an
ASF project.

It was not about the current fact that Moqui is already a project.

I feel more comfortable about using ASF artifacts in our own products
than I do about other libraries but we do use a lot of non-ASF software
as key technologies (Spring, MySQL are key non-ASF technologies for
Artifact Software).

There was also some concern about the license under which Moqui is released.


Ron

On 30/04/2015 1:48 AM, David E. Jones wrote:

>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 08:01, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> What is the reason not to absorb Moqui or a fork of Moqui into OFBiz if we decide to replace the existing framework with Moqui.
>>
>> Is there a reason to have Moqui as a separate Apache project? Seems like extra overhead for no advantage.
> Moqui is already a separate project. The OFBiz community could certainly create a fork of Moqui and change whatever is desired (though that shouldn’t be necessary), but Moqui Framework is already a separate project with its own ecosystem of business artifacts and applications. That won’t ever change, Moqui will always be a separate project.
>
> -David
>
>
>

--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [hidden email]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: [phone], ext 102

[Adam Heath-2]

On 04/30/2015 12:22 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> avalon-framework(4.2.0 in ofbiz) is no longer available. avalon.apache.org is closed(!).
>> This was introduce with http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=746645 and is no longer used
>>
> Avalon is a dependency for FOP.
>
>>> jdom in ofbiz is 1.1, but 2.0.6 is available.
>> Only JDOMException is used in images related classes
>>
> Several jars have dependencies on jdom: Freemarker, Rome, Ant Contrib, Xstreams
>
> Jacopo

Neither of these should be required by ofbiz, but should be
auto-installed by a dependency resolver.  Maven brings that to the table.

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 30/04/2015 18:03, Adam Heath a écrit :

>
> On 04/30/2015 12:22 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> avalon-framework(4.2.0 in ofbiz) is no longer available. avalon.apache.org is closed(!).
>>> This was introduce with http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=746645 and is no longer used
>>>
>> Avalon is a dependency for FOP.
>>
>>>> jdom in ofbiz is 1.1, but 2.0.6 is available.
>>> Only JDOMException is used in images related classes
>>>
>> Several jars have dependencies on jdom: Freemarker, Rome, Ant Contrib, Xstreams
>>
>> Jacopo
>
> Neither of these should be required by ofbiz, but should be auto-installed by a dependency resolver.  Maven brings that to the table.
>

So far we were mostly worried by possible incompatibilities, I agree that should no longer prevent us. And as said Jacopo it's the (logical)
recommended way by the ASF (costs efficiency!)

Jacques

[David E. Jones-2]

This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote shouldn’t be considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal (as a PoC in a branch) was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in fact from this message it seems that is explicitly NOT what the vote was supposed to be about based on the comment that doing a PoC in a branch requires no vote.

Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I don’t see how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most people replied with multiple votes with different clarifications!

This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply have been cancelled or reframed.

-David

> On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>
> PMC Members (Binding)
> ---------------------
> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>
>
> Others (non-Binding)
> --------------------
> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>
> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>
> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I will consider this vote closed.
>
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing some (or
>> all) of OFBiz with Moqui (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
>>
>> To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
>> following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
>>
>> Entity Engine
>> Service Engine
>> Security
>>
>> Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
>> think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful, then
>> more of OFBiz can be converted later.
>>
>> I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve compatibility
>> problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it here in
>> case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
>>

[David E. Jones-2]

> On 30 Apr 2015, at 05:31, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My point was about the suggestion that you might want to add it as a TLP in ASF but there were concerns about the amount of effort to start an ASF project.

For Moqui Framework as an ASF project my concern really isn’t about the effort required, it would be WAY easier than when OFBiz went through the incubator. My concerns are about the community management approach, the forced growth of the community to graduate from the incubator (leading to hurried and possibly bad decisions about who to include as committers and PMC members), the ASF trademark policy and it’s use to go beyond what the Apache 2 license requires using trademarks as another channel for legal threats, the infrastructure constraints, and so on.

The main benefit to joining the ASF: branding. It is a HUGE taboo to even say such a thing (and in the incubator proposals they want an ack that this is NOT a reason for joining the ASF), but it is the reality. For OFBiz the main benefit we've seen over time, IMO, had nothing to do with the oversight or community structure or infra or anything legal, but just having the Apache name on the project to boost confidence in the software. The irony is that the ASF has no policies related to software quality, but this is the public perception, helped along by no shortage of public statements by many people involved with the ASF. Maybe it’s more acceptable to say the ASF community model leads to higher quality software, that’s the general mantra anyway, but compared to other models I haven’t found that to be especially true.

The ASF approach has it’s place and it’s great for certain types of software, but IMO is too inflexible for greater innovation to happen which is why most ASF projects start outside the ASF and join the foundation after reaching a certain point of maturity, and mostly by companies wanting to grow a community around a piece of software to reduce maintenance and support costs. That isn’t a bad thing, such software tends to do very well long term!

-David

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote shouldn’t be considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal (as a PoC in a branch) was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in fact from this message it seems that is explicitly NOT what the vote was supposed to be about based on the comment that doing a PoC in a branch requires no vote.
>

I had the same thought: for example, I didn't understand why David's and my vote have been classified as +1 and -1 respectively when I have clearly mentioned: "+1 to this proposal by David".

Jacopo

> Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I don’t see how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most people replied with multiple votes with different clarifications!
>
> This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply have been cancelled or reframed.
>
> -David
>
>
>> On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>>
>> PMC Members (Binding)
>> ---------------------
>> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
>> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
>> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>>
>>
>> Others (non-Binding)
>> --------------------
>> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
>> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>>
>> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>>
>> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I will consider this vote closed.
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing some (or
>>> all) of OFBiz with Moqui (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
>>>
>>> To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
>>> following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
>>>
>>> Entity Engine
>>> Service Engine
>>> Security
>>>
>>> Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
>>> think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful, then
>>> more of OFBiz can be converted later.
>>>
>>> I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve compatibility
>>> problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it here in
>>> case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

At least Adrian brought this on the table and it was worth beginning to discuss :)

We know now that nobody would do it w/o a PoC

Jacques

Le 01/05/2015 08:10, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote shouldn’t be considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal (as a PoC in a branch) was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in fact from this message it seems that is explicitly NOT what the vote was supposed to be about based on the comment that doing a PoC in a branch requires no vote.
>>
> I had the same thought: for example, I didn't understand why David's and my vote have been classified as +1 and -1 respectively when I have clearly mentioned: "+1 to this proposal by David".
>
> Jacopo
>
>> Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I don’t see how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most people replied with multiple votes with different clarifications!
>>
>> This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply have been cancelled or reframed.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>>>
>>> PMC Members (Binding)
>>> ---------------------
>>> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
>>> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
>>> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>>>
>>>
>>> Others (non-Binding)
>>> --------------------
>>> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
>>> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>>>
>>> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>>>
>>> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I will consider this vote closed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing some (or
>>>> all) of OFBiz with Moqui (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
>>>>
>>>> To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
>>>> following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
>>>>
>>>> Entity Engine
>>>> Service Engine
>>>> Security
>>>>
>>>> Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
>>>> think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful, then
>>>> more of OFBiz can be converted later.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve compatibility
>>>> problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it here in
>>>> case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
>>>>
>
>

[Adrian Crum-3]

Thanks Jacques!

One of the biggest challenges ahead will be trying to build consensus -
since we can't even agree on how a vote should be worded.

Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 5/1/2015 7:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> At least Adrian brought this on the table and it was worth beginning to
> discuss :)
>
> We know now that nobody would do it w/o a PoC
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 01/05/2015 08:10, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote
>>> shouldn’t be considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal
>>> (as a PoC in a branch) was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in
>>> fact from this message it seems that is explicitly NOT what the vote
>>> was supposed to be about based on the comment that doing a PoC in a
>>> branch requires no vote.
>>>
>> I had the same thought: for example, I didn't understand why David's
>> and my vote have been classified as +1 and -1 respectively when I have
>> clearly mentioned: "+1 to this proposal by David".
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I
>>> don’t see how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most
>>> people replied with multiple votes with different clarifications!
>>>
>>> This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply
>>> have been cancelled or reframed.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many
>>>> replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my
>>>> best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>>>>
>>>> PMC Members (Binding)
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
>>>> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
>>>> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Others (non-Binding)
>>>> --------------------
>>>> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
>>>> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>>>>
>>>> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>>>>
>>>> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to
>>>> explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I
>>>> will consider this vote closed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>> On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing
>>>>> some (or
>>>>> all) of OFBiz with Moqui (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
>>>>> following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
>>>>>
>>>>> Entity Engine
>>>>> Service Engine
>>>>> Security
>>>>>
>>>>> Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
>>>>> think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful, then
>>>>> more of OFBiz can be converted later.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve compatibility
>>>>> problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it here in
>>>>> case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
>>>>>
>>
>>

[Ron Wheeler]

Or even a scope of what the project encompasses.

Ron


On 02/05/2015 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Thanks Jacques!
>
> One of the biggest challenges ahead will be trying to build consensus
> - since we can't even agree on how a vote should be worded.
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 5/1/2015 7:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> At least Adrian brought this on the table and it was worth beginning to
>> discuss :)
>>
>> We know now that nobody would do it w/o a PoC
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 01/05/2015 08:10, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote
>>>> shouldn’t be considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal
>>>> (as a PoC in a branch) was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in
>>>> fact from this message it seems that is explicitly NOT what the vote
>>>> was supposed to be about based on the comment that doing a PoC in a
>>>> branch requires no vote.
>>>>
>>> I had the same thought: for example, I didn't understand why David's
>>> and my vote have been classified as +1 and -1 respectively when I have
>>> clearly mentioned: "+1 to this proposal by David".
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I
>>>> don’t see how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most
>>>> people replied with multiple votes with different clarifications!
>>>>
>>>> This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply
>>>> have been cancelled or reframed.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many
>>>>> replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my
>>>>> best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> PMC Members (Binding)
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> +0 | 2  (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
>>>>> +1 | 1  (David Jones)
>>>>> -1 | 3  (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Others (non-Binding)
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>> +0 | 1  (Adrian Crum)
>>>>> -1 | 2  (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to
>>>>> explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I
>>>>> will consider this vote closed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing
>>>>>> some (or
>>>>>> all) of OFBiz with Moqui
>>>>>> (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
>>>>>> following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Entity Engine
>>>>>> Service Engine
>>>>>> Security
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
>>>>>> think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> more of OFBiz can be converted later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve
>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>> problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it
>>>>>> here in
>>>>>> case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [hidden email]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: [phone], ext 102