What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Wouldn't be better to make the ant target "run-install" equivalent to "run-install-seed"? Instead if the user wants to load also demo data they should be explicitly mentioned in the ant target: run-install-demo

The risk is that, a user upgrading a production server could type "run-install" instead of "run-install-seed" and load all demo data.

What do you think?

Jacopo

[chris snow-2]

Yes please!

On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

Wouldn't be better to make the ant target "run-install" equivalent to
"run-install-seed"? Instead if the user wants to load also demo data they
should be explicitly mentioned in the ant target: run-install-demo

The risk is that, a user upgrading a production server could type
"run-install" instead of "run-install-seed" and load all demo data.

What do you think?

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

+1 !

Jacques

From: "chris snow" <[hidden email]>

> Yes please!
>
> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't be better to make the ant target "run-install" equivalent to
> "run-install-seed"? Instead if the user wants to load also demo data they
> should be explicitly mentioned in the ant target: run-install-demo
>
> The risk is that, a user upgrading a production server could type
> "run-install" instead of "run-install-seed" and load all demo data.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>

[Adam Heath-2]

chris snow wrote:

> Yes please!
>
> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't be better to make the ant target "run-install" equivalent to
> "run-install-seed"? Instead if the user wants to load also demo data they
> should be explicitly mentioned in the ant target: run-install-demo
>
> The risk is that, a user upgrading a production server could type
> "run-install" instead of "run-install-seed" and load all demo data.
>
> What do you think?

run-install, with no readers specified, has always installed *all*
data.  Don't change it.

The list of data segments that are installed when none are explicitly
requested is defined in entityengine.xml, with the
<entity-data-reader> elements.

An install of ofbiz may explicitly always specify the readers on the
command line, or may have editted entityengine.xml, and removed the
items that they are not interested.

[chris snow-2]

Based on my experiences the current run-install is dangerous.  It is the
first target an inexperienced user will run.  If this is done on an internet
host, the host can easily be rooted by an attacker if the default passwords
are not changed.

On 20 Apr 2010 17:55, "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]> wrote:

chris snow wrote:
> Yes please!
>
> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappellato@ho...
run-install, with no readers specified, has always installed *all*
data.  Don't change it.

The list of data segments that are installed when none are explicitly
requested is defined in entityengine.xml, with the
<entity-data-reader> elements.

An install of ofbiz may explicitly always specify the readers on the
command line, or may have editted entityengine.xml, and removed the
items that they are not interested.

[Adrian Crum]

Those are user issues, not software issues. I agree with Adam - this
behavior has always existed, and changing it now will cause more
problems than it fixes.

-Adrian

chris snow wrote:

> Based on my experiences the current run-install is dangerous.  It is the
> first target an inexperienced user will run.  If this is done on an internet
> host, the host can easily be rooted by an attacker if the default passwords
> are not changed.
>
> On 20 Apr 2010 17:55, "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> chris snow wrote:
>> Yes please!
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappellato@ho...
> run-install, with no readers specified, has always installed *all*
> data.  Don't change it.
>
> The list of data segments that are installed when none are explicitly
> requested is defined in entityengine.xml, with the
> <entity-data-reader> elements.
>
> An install of ofbiz may explicitly always specify the readers on the
> command line, or may have editted entityengine.xml, and removed the
> items that they are not interested.
>

[BJ Freeman]

I like adams proposal better than the one I was going to propose
+1

=========================
BJ Freeman
http://bjfreeman.elance.com
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>

Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Linkedin
<http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>


Adam Heath sent the following on 4/20/2010 9:54 AM:

> chris snow wrote:
>> Yes please!
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't be better to make the ant target "run-install" equivalent to
>> "run-install-seed"? Instead if the user wants to load also demo data they
>> should be explicitly mentioned in the ant target: run-install-demo
>>
>> The risk is that, a user upgrading a production server could type
>> "run-install" instead of "run-install-seed" and load all demo data.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> run-install, with no readers specified, has always installed *all*
> data.  Don't change it.
>
> The list of data segments that are installed when none are explicitly
> requested is defined in entityengine.xml, with the
> <entity-data-reader> elements.
>
> An install of ofbiz may explicitly always specify the readers on the
> command line, or may have editted entityengine.xml, and removed the
> items that they are not interested.
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Adrian Crum wrote:
> Those are user issues, not software issues. I agree with Adam - this
> behavior has always existed, and changing it now will cause more
> problems than it fixes.

To be fair, I hear everyone's points.  However, the right way to do
this, is to *not* change existing functionality.  You add a new
command, change all doco to use the new command, then issue a
deprecation/warning on the old command.  This is no different than
altering an api.

>
> -Adrian
>
> chris snow wrote:
>> Based on my experiences the current run-install is dangerous.  It is the
>> first target an inexperienced user will run.  If this is done on an
>> internet
>> host, the host can easily be rooted by an attacker if the default
>> passwords
>> are not changed.
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2010 17:55, "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> chris snow wrote:
>>> Yes please!
>>>
>>> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappellato@ho...
>> run-install, with no readers specified, has always installed *all*
>> data.  Don't change it.
>>
>> The list of data segments that are installed when none are explicitly
>> requested is defined in entityengine.xml, with the
>> <entity-data-reader> elements.
>>
>> An install of ofbiz may explicitly always specify the readers on the
>> command line, or may have editted entityengine.xml, and removed the
>> items that they are not interested.
>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Those are user issues, not software issues. I agree with Adam - this
>> behavior has always existed, and changing it now will cause more
>> problems than it fixes.
>
> To be fair, I hear everyone's points.  However, the right way to do
> this, is to *not* change existing functionality.

This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" mode...

Jacopo

>  You add a new
> command, change all doco to use the new command, then issue a
> deprecation/warning on the old command.  This is no different than
> altering an api.
>
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> chris snow wrote:
>>> Based on my experiences the current run-install is dangerous.  It is the
>>> first target an inexperienced user will run.  If this is done on an
>>> internet
>>> host, the host can easily be rooted by an attacker if the default
>>> passwords
>>> are not changed.
>>>
>>> On 20 Apr 2010 17:55, "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> chris snow wrote:
>>>> Yes please!
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 16:41, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappellato@ho...
>>> run-install, with no readers specified, has always installed *all*
>>> data.  Don't change it.
>>>
>>> The list of data segments that are installed when none are explicitly
>>> requested is defined in entityengine.xml, with the
>>> <entity-data-reader> elements.
>>>
>>> An install of ofbiz may explicitly always specify the readers on the
>>> command line, or may have editted entityengine.xml, and removed the
>>> items that they are not interested.
>>>
>

[Ean Schuessler]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" mode...
>  
Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
valid example. I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
program.

Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[hidden email]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" mode...
>>
> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
> valid example.

As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation to learn the change.
But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.

Jacopo

> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
> program.
>
> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>
> --
> Ean Schuessler, CTO
> [hidden email]
> 214-720-0700 x 315
> Brainfood, Inc.
> http://www.brainfood.com
>

[rajsaini]

In my opinion run-install is misleading as it really does not tell that
it is going to install demo data and cause confusion to new users as it
has happened with me in the past. For the benefit of old and new users,
I suggest to add new command run-install-demo and leave the run-install
as it is for a while and document them to tell what exactly they do.
There are numerous examples of this in the Linux/Unix world.

Thanks,

Raj

On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>
>    
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>      
>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" mode...
>>>
>>>        
>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>> valid example.
>>      
> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation to learn the change.
> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>
> Jacopo
>
>    
>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>> program.
>>
>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>
>> --
>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>> [hidden email]
>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>> Brainfood, Inc.
>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>
>>      
>
>    

[Ashish Vijaywargiya]

+1.

--
Ashish

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Raj Saini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it really does not tell that it
> is going to install demo data and cause confusion to new users as it has
> happened with me in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I
> suggest to add new command run-install-demo and leave the run-install as it
> is for a while and document them to tell what exactly they do. There are
> numerous examples of this in the Linux/Unix world.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raj
>
> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to
>>>> altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru"
>>>> mode...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>>> valid example.
>>>
>>
>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if
>> the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth
>> of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation
>> to learn the change.
>> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things
>> as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and
>> frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>>> program.
>>>
>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>>> Brainfood, Inc.
>>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ashish Vijaywargiya]

For now we can create new target and can keep old as it is. And as the
time passes we can recommend the use of ant run-install-demo instead
of ant run-install.

After certain duration, lets say after 6 month or one year we can
deprecate the use of ant run-install from the system.

I think we can start *VOTE* on this.
Thoughts?

--
Ashish

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1.
>
> --
> Ashish
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Raj Saini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it really does not tell that it
>> is going to install demo data and cause confusion to new users as it has
>> happened with me in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I
>> suggest to add new command run-install-demo and leave the run-install as it
>> is for a while and document them to tell what exactly they do. There are
>> numerous examples of this in the Linux/Unix world.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Raj
>>
>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to
>>>>> altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru"
>>>>> mode...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>>>> valid example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if
>>> the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth
>>> of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation
>>> to learn the change.
>>> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things
>>> as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and
>>> frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>>>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>>>> Brainfood, Inc.
>>>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[BJ Freeman]

as I have stated many times ofbiz is very fluid.
from 2.0 up where things are and how things are done have
change every 6 months of less.
everybody has survived though a lot of grumbling.
the change would definitely save a lot of explaining, in the future.
I like the idea of keep the "run-install" but only for seed data.
then have one for "run-install-demo" that calls "run-install" then loads
the demo data.
This way if some follows docs that have not been change they will ask
were the demo data is and they can be informed and the doc can be changed.
after 6 month who will remember that "run-install" once loaded demo data.



=======================
BJ Freeman
http://bjfreeman.elance.com
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>

Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Linkedin
<http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>


Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 4/20/2010 9:09 PM:

> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" mode...
>>>
>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>> valid example.
>
> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation to learn the change.
> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>
> Jacopo
>
>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>> program.
>>
>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>
>> --
>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>> [hidden email]
>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>> Brainfood, Inc.
>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>
>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be.

Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers?

-Not David

P.S. On a more serious note, I'm not a huge fan of universal backward compatibility (or of changes that cause hidden breaking of backward compatibility... better to break things completely than make things seem like they are working even though existing code fails, like type conversion changes and such). Sometimes it takes a while to figure out the best way to do things, and why keep the problematic and bad ways of doing things when we do figure it out? If a hexagonal wheel works so much better than a square wheel that square wheels don't make sense anymore, to the point where they caused more problems than they solved, why not encourage everyone to change and just stop supporting the bad design? And yes, sooner or later we're gonna figure out that a good round shape is better than a hexagon and then we'll have to change again... and it'll be WELL worth it and users will thank us a lot for fixing those issues. Just because we haven't fixed a bad idea for a long time doesn't make it any better of an idea.



On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:

> For now we can create new target and can keep old as it is. And as the
> time passes we can recommend the use of ant run-install-demo instead
> of ant run-install.
>
> After certain duration, lets say after 6 month or one year we can
> deprecate the use of ant run-install from the system.
>
> I think we can start *VOTE* on this.
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Ashish
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> +1.
>>
>> --
>> Ashish
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Raj Saini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it really does not tell that it
>>> is going to install demo data and cause confusion to new users as it has
>>> happened with me in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I
>>> suggest to add new command run-install-demo and leave the run-install as it
>>> is for a while and document them to tell what exactly they do. There are
>>> numerous examples of this in the Linux/Unix world.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Raj
>>>
>>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to
>>>>>> altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru"
>>>>>> mode...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>>>>> valid example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if
>>>> the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth
>>>> of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation
>>>> to learn the change.
>>>> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things
>>>> as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and
>>>> frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>>>>> program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>>>>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>>>>> Brainfood, Inc.
>>>>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I had the same thought, thanks Raj

Jacques

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

> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it really does not tell that it is going to install demo data and cause confusion to
> new users as it has happened with me in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest to add new command
> run-install-demo and leave the run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell what exactly they do. There are numerous
> examples of this in the Linux/Unix world.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raj
>
> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with
>>>> the "teacher/guru" mode...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>>> valid example.
>>>
>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my
>> opinion this is worth of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation to learn the change.
>> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things as is because I understand that this could be annoying
>> for old users and frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>>> program.
>>>
>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>>> Brainfood, Inc.
>>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

The easiest way to do this would be to:
1) add run-install-demo (= run-install)
2) run-install should simply print a message explaining that now run-install-demo should be used

But really, I am not very interested in spending more time to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or my customers) have.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I had the same thought, thanks Raj
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]>
>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it really does not tell that it is going to install demo data and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest to add new command run-install-demo and leave the run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in the Linux/Unix world.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Raj
>>
>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" mode...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell script parameters as an API? You
>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>>>> valid example.
>>>>
>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even if old users would have to read one line of documentation to learn the change.
>>> But really, it is not very important, I am more than happy to leave things as is because I understand that this could be annoying for old users and frankly speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss this.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts as a class of
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an expectation that run-install will
>>>> give you a demo system and that could throw people off. Changing it
>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear that it adds value.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>>>> Brainfood, Inc.
>>>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Adrian Crum-2]

Jacopo,

You're missing the point - it's not as easy as that. The command "ant run-install" is mentioned in innumerable places in documentation, websites, books, etc. It's not just a matter of modifying a script - it's a matter of rewriting seven years of documentation.

If it's not an issue, then why did you bring it up?

-Adrian


--- On Tue, 4/20/10, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 11:54 PM
> The easiest way to do this would be
> to:
> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install)
> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining
> that now run-install-demo should be used
>
> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time
> to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or
> my customers) have.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> > I had the same thought, thanks Raj
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]>
> >> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it
> really does not tell that it is going to install demo data
> and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me
> in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest
> to add new command run-install-demo and leave the
> run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell
> what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in
> the Linux/Unix world.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Raj
> >>
> >> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I
> respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is
> ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru"
> mode...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell
> script parameters as an API? You
> >>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became
> "rm" one day, as an extreme but
> >>>> valid example.
> >>>>
> >>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would
> be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm
> -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even
> if old users would have to read one line of documentation to
> learn the change.
> >>> But really, it is not very important, I am
> more than happy to leave things as is because I understand
> that this could be annoying for old users and frankly
> speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss
> this.
> >>>
> >>> Jacopo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts
> as a class of
> >>>> program.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an
> expectation that run-install will
> >>>> give you a demo system and that could
> throw people off. Changing it
> >>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear
> that it adds value.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
> >>>> Brainfood, Inc.
> >>>> http://www.brainfood.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>

     

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Jacopo,
>
> You're missing the point - it's not as easy as that. The command "ant run-install" is mentioned in innumerable places in documentation, websites, books, etc. It's not just a matter of modifying a script - it's a matter of rewriting seven years of documentation.

No, we are not changing past releases; imo we will simply have to update the documentation of the new releases and of the trunk.

>
> If it's not an issue, then why did you bring it up?

It is not an issue for *me*, but I know that users are often confused by the run-install target.

Jacopo

>
> -Adrian
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/20/10, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 11:54 PM
>> The easiest way to do this would be
>> to:
>> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install)
>> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining
>> that now run-install-demo should be used
>>
>> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time
>> to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or
>> my customers) have.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> I had the same thought, thanks Raj
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]>
>>>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it
>> really does not tell that it is going to install demo data
>> and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me
>> in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest
>> to add new command run-install-demo and leave the
>> run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell
>> what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in
>> the Linux/Unix world.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Raj
>>>>
>>>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I
>> respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is
>> ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru"
>> mode...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell
>> script parameters as an API? You
>>>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became
>> "rm" one day, as an extreme but
>>>>>> valid example.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would
>> be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm
>> -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even
>> if old users would have to read one line of documentation to
>> learn the change.
>>>>> But really, it is not very important, I am
>> more than happy to leave things as is because I understand
>> that this could be annoying for old users and frankly
>> speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss
>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts
>> as a class of
>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an
>> expectation that run-install will
>>>>>> give you a demo system and that could
>> throw people off. Changing it
>>>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear
>> that it adds value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315
>>>>>> Brainfood, Inc.
>>>>>> http://www.brainfood.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>