OFBiz › OFBiz - User

What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

46 messages Options

123

Adrian Crum-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> > Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
> >
> > Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not
> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that sort of
> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of both of
> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very
> familiar with the projects themselves.
> >
> > It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
> established community) in frustration and start another
> project. It's hard to find a migration path that continues
> to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship
> on the existing installed base.
> >
> > It would be better if we could find a middle ground -
> a compromise - that keeps the talent and innovation in a
> single project, instead of scattering it into competing
> projects.
>
> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the
> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but
> not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
> fights about what should go into the single pot?
>
> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework
> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that
> address different audiences and are driven by different
> groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to
> different themes, different UIs, different business domains,
> etc.

That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that has been around for 10 years and has a considerable user base and developer base?

OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.

-Adrian

David E. Jones-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
>>>
>>> Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not
>> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that sort of
>> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of both of
>> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very
>> familiar with the projects themselves.
>>>
>>> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
>> established community) in frustration and start another
>> project. It's hard to find a migration path that continues
>> to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship
>> on the existing installed base.
>>>
>>> It would be better if we could find a middle ground -
>> a compromise - that keeps the talent and innovation in a
>> single project, instead of scattering it into competing
>> projects.
>>
>> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the
>> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but
>> not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
>> fights about what should go into the single pot?
>>
>> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework
>> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that
>> address different audiences and are driven by different
>> groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to
>> different themes, different UIs, different business domains,
>> etc.
>
> That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that has been around for 10 years and has a considerable user base and developer base?
>
> OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.

In a way they are. The whole point is to not have anything like a single project. There would be a framework project, and a data model project, and then everything else (themes, applications, reusable elements for use in applications, etc, etc) would all be separate projects.

The point is to grow an ecosystem on a strong foundation and encourage people to do there own thing in separate projects that easily work with others built on the same foundation.

The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens of small parts I don't think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one place to get everything I need or want is just not realistic and results in the tragedy of the commons.

-David

Brian Topping

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant fights about what should go into the single pot?
>
> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.

This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.

Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB. I really like what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and domain models, and lose interest when I am required to use a tightly-coupled UI with it.

I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I would choke and turn blue before using them. We haven't even started considering some of the cool stuff available with Grails or what kind of UI could be autogenerated from messages. And whether I would adopt any of these UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository (i.e. if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)

There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so people can integrate. That's what an ESB is all about.

When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are running OSGi or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me problems, I can deal with them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing decision to make.

When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can convince stakeholders that they are future-proofed to some greater degree. Every company that buys into the architecture expands the entire ecosystem in the process, everyone wins.

Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue with what makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a for a far better and more portable representation than anything we could cook ourselves. OMG standards for metadata, such as CWM [1] are conceptually far more powerful than anything we could dream up on our own and have existing tool support, which is better than starting from zero. Even if we just modeled our own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current unique method, however open.

If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain through such means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions. As well, other projects will start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further increasing the connectedness and vitality of the ecosystem.

I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like this old architecture is holding everyone back. At some point, the pressure on it will be too great to resist even the combined inertia of the available OFBiz solutions, it's just a matter of when.

Brian

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel

Brian Topping

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens of small parts I don't think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one place to get everything I need or want is just not realistic and results in the tragedy of the commons.

My previous paragraphs of text are summarized by these two sentences...

David E. Jones-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by Brian Topping

Brian,

If I understand correctly you are proposing an architecture where the UI ONLY accesses the data store through remote service calls (ie all reads and writes go through a remote service) and in effect the database and services would live in one server and the UI would live in another and access it through some sort of ESB? Basically the UI server and the data/logic server would only communicate through these common standard XML documents sent over the network.

Have you ever worked with a system that was architected in this way?

These standards are great, but are really meant for integration between separate systems. I've definitely heard of the idea of doing things this way, quite a lot in fact, but I've never seen an enterprise system architected in this way. There are certainly organizations that have an enterprise architecture where they try to push everything through an ESB, but only the messages that need to go between systems and not every little thing that a system might do internally.

If you, or anyone, has experiences with that it would be interesting to hear about.

-David

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:53 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant fights about what should go into the single pot?
>>
>> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.
>
> This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.
>
> Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB. I really like what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and domain models, and lose interest when I am required to use a tightly-coupled UI with it.
>
> I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I would choke and turn blue before using them. We haven't even started considering some of the cool stuff available with Grails or what kind of UI could be autogenerated from messages. And whether I would adopt any of these UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository (i.e. if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)
>
> There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so people can integrate. That's what an ESB is all about.
>
> When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are running OSGi or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me problems, I can deal with them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing decision to make.
>
> When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can convince stakeholders that they are future-proofed to some greater degree. Every company that buys into the architecture expands the entire ecosystem in the process, everyone wins.
>
> Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue with what makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a for a far better and more portable representation than anything we could cook ourselves. OMG standards for metadata, such as CWM [1] are conceptually far more powerful than anything we could dream up on our own and have existing tool support, which is better than starting from zero. Even if we just modeled our own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current unique method, however open.
>
> If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain through such means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions. As well, other projects will start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further increasing the connectedness and vitality of the ecosystem.
>
> I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like this old architecture is holding everyone back. At some point, the pressure on it will be too great to resist even the combined inertia of the available OFBiz solutions, it's just a matter of when.
>
> Brian
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel

Adrian Crum-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>
> >>> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and
> Moqui.
> >>>
> >>> Speaking personally (and I stress personally -
> I'm not
> >> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that
> sort of
> >> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of
> both of
> >> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm
> also very
> >> familiar with the projects themselves.
> >>>
> >>> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
> >> established community) in frustration and start
> another
> >> project. It's hard to find a migration path that
> continues
> >> to embrace new technologies without causing undue
> hardship
> >> on the existing installed base.
> >>>
> >>> It would be better if we could find a middle
> ground -
> >> a compromise - that keeps the talent and
> innovation in a
> >> single project, instead of scattering it into
> competing
> >> projects.
> >>
> >> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't
> one of the
> >> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big
> pot, but
> >> not all users want the same thing, and so there
> are constant
> >> fights about what should go into the single pot?
> >>
> >> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable
> framework
> >> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of
> it that
> >> address different audiences and are driven by
> different
> >> groups with different needs/wants? That would
> apply to
> >> different themes, different UIs, different
> business domains,
> >> etc.
> >
> > That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that
> has been around for 10 years and has a considerable user
> base and developer base?
> >
> > OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.
>
> In a way they are. The whole point is to not have anything
> like a single project. There would be a framework project,
> and a data model project, and then everything else (themes,
> applications, reusable elements for use in applications,
> etc, etc) would all be separate projects.
>
> The point is to grow an ecosystem on a strong foundation
> and encourage people to do there own thing in separate
> projects that easily work with others built on the same
> foundation.
>
> The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons),
> which is something that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without
> splitting the project into dozens of small parts I don't
> think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one place
> to get everything I need or want is just not realistic and
> results in the tragedy of the commons.

We have common goals, but two different approaches. Your approach is to scrap everything and start over. My approach is to bundle up pieces of OFBiz into "pots" that can be spun off into separate projects (ie. conversion framework, temporal expressions). For example, I have a project I'm working on now that desperately needs a stand-alone entity engine - but the existing OFBiz entity engine code is too tangled with everything else. The service engine could be bundled up as a separate project and maybe run on JMS - so it can be integrated with third-party applications.

From my perspective, OFBiz contains valuable technologies that could be spun off into separate projects. We just need to think of it more as a collection of libraries. I believe that approach would be far more constructive than having other projects competing with OFBiz.

-Adrian

BJ Freeman

Re: What happeded to the real theme?

In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-2

show me where you had participation of the user (those that have
production system) base, for gotcha they perceived.
or a note in the user ml that there is a discussion.
most users are given the impression they can not participated on the dev
list which is not the case, when discussing ofbiz changes.

My focus is my original understanding of ofbiz.
as an example, ofbiz let me develop a UI that uses SWT, yet the same
code could be used with the standard UI.
the Key is all the UI options should be just that, options, that can be
configured to be used.
the most recent discussion that covers this is Jquery. This should be
configurable.
the other point is it is great to add but not remove or change the
characteristics, without some upgrade path and/or documentation.
The reason behind this is ROI.
As long as ofbiz does not support this standard protocol, Imho, ofbiz
will not be at the level of use of SAGE without this.

In the discussion about breaking up ofbiz, I don't agree that ofbiz need
to be broken up, Just the patterns originally proposed be followed.

as far as flatgrey I am with mike.
keep the original and make the updated one flatgreyII.

=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Adrian Crum sent the following on 1/20/2011 6:56 PM:

> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>
> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those production systems when proposing changes.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> you will find that the ofbiz
>> developer group first priority is to change
>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>> offbiz.
>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>> they do.
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> BJ Freeman
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>
>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>
>>
>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>>> But why delete it? Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>> on flatgrey, and their
>>> employees are used to it. At least keep it
>> around as flatgrey_old.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>> developer community decided to
>>>> update it.
>>>>
>>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>> are welcome to replace the
>>>> new one with it.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>>>> been completely redefined. What
>> happened? I thought it was actually
>>>>> the best theme that was very well
>> organized. Is there a way to get it
>>>>> back?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

BJ Freeman

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by Brian Topping

just so we are on the same page is this what you call ESB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_service_bus
I note this is similar to the Windows Operating systemm.
Since ofbiz is already pushing memory limits not sure it could handle
such a system and keep speed.

=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Brian Topping sent the following on 1/20/2011 11:53 PM:

Erwan de FERRIERES

Re: What happeded to the real theme?

In reply to this post by BJ Freeman

Le 21/01/2011 09:48, BJ Freeman a écrit :

> as far as flatgrey I am with mike.
> keep the original and make the updated one flatgreyII.

Create a jira issue, and add it your patch if you want if back. We can
also start a discussion on this base.

Anyway, as it was said before, books are based on stable versions, 9.04
or 10.04 in which is included the old flatgrey. So there is no harm done
from this point.

One more thing, how can one be surprised if things are changing and he
is not suscribing to dev and commit lists ?

--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz

Scott Gray-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2

Hi Ruth,

Hope you are well. Out of curiosity, how did everything go at ApacheCon?

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 21/01/2011, at 4:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
>
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those production systems when proposing changes.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>>
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>>>> But why delete it? Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>> on flatgrey, and their
>>>> employees are used to it. At least keep it
>>> around as flatgrey_old.
>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>> developer community decided to
>>>>> update it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>> are welcome to replace the
>>>>> new one with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>>>>> been completely redefined. What
>>> happened? I thought it was actually
>>>>>> the best theme that was very well
>>> organized. Is there a way to get it
>>>>>> back?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Ryan Foster-3

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2

While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete overhaul. We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - that's it). This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without discussion and debate. We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".

Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to work. if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS changes. Also, if you look at the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January. Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.

I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme. Simply blindly following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.

Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
[hidden email]
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

Ryan Foster-3

Re: What happeded to the real theme?

In reply to this post by Erwan de FERRIERES

As I stated before in previous conversations, I don't care whether we keep the original, keep the updated, or make a new theme. As the lone UxD voice on this mailing list majority of the time, IMO we should not have a bunch of themes maintained in the trunk and keep adding more every time something new or updated comes along. The reason that theming was created in the first place was so that functionality was not tied to look and feel. Let's pull all but 2-3 out max and archive the rest on the Wiki. If anyone wants a theme, they can get it there. Adding a theme literally only takes a few minutes and be done on the fly on a running OFBiz installation. You've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Ryan L. Foster
801.671.0769
[hidden email]
ryanlfoster.com

On Jan 21, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

> Le 21/01/2011 09:48, BJ Freeman a écrit :
>
>> as far as flatgrey I am with mike.
>> keep the original and make the updated one flatgreyII.
>
> Create a jira issue, and add it your patch if you want if back. We can also start a discussion on this base.
>
> Anyway, as it was said before, books are based on stable versions, 9.04 or 10.04 in which is included the old flatgrey. So there is no harm done from this point.
>
> One more thing, how can one be surprised if things are changing and he is not suscribing to dev and commit lists ?
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
> www.nereide.biz

Brian Topping

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2

On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:15 AM, David E Jones wrote:

> Have you ever worked with a system that was architected in this way?

I'm building it now, been working on it ever since letting go of OFBiz and finding my weak efforts to make start such a drastic rewrite were going to take more effort than I was willing to champion. I spoke up about it here and now because there was an opportunity to do so.

It's not "easy", it's not "hard" either. I think with the foundation in place, developers would have no problem with it. I'm sure I do not understand all the issues that some OFBiz deployments have, but I can't imagine that I can't cook a solution if I came up against the problem either.

Brian

Jacques Le Roux

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Ryan Foster-3

For those interested here is the thread (58 messages exchanged)
http://markmail.org/message/j25og4np7t5xkta2

Jacques

Ryan Foster wrote:

> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on
> refreshing the theme (and that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete overhaul. We changed the header
> and footer, and made a few CSS changes - that's it). This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without discussion and
> debate. We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>
> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of December, asked for feedback, suggestions and
> participation, and we went to work. if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS changes. Also, if you
> look at the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots and 8 separate patches posted
> between the 4th and the 14th of January. Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>
> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a
> theme. Simply blindly following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless software that was cutting edge 10
> years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>
>
> Ryan L. Foster
> 801.671.0769
> [hidden email]
> ryanlfoster.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a
>> clue". Just my 2 cents.
>> Ruth
>>
>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>>
>>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they
>>> would not consider those production systems when proposing changes.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>>> offbiz.
>>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>>> they do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>
>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>>>>> But why delete it? Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>>> on flatgrey, and their
>>>>> employees are used to it. At least keep it
>>>> around as flatgrey_old.
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>>> developer community decided to
>>>>>> update it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>>> are welcome to replace the
>>>>>> new one with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>>>>>> been completely redefined. What
>>>> happened? I thought it was actually
>>>>>>> the best theme that was very well
>>>> organized. Is there a way to get it
>>>>>>> back?

Jacques Le Roux

Re: What happeded to the real theme?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Ryan Foster-3

I agree, tough some or someone have still to move things... I don't see much of that happening yet... No hurry anyway...
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Visual+Themes+Gallery

Jacques

Ryan Foster wrote:

> As I stated before in previous conversations, I don't care whether we keep the original, keep the updated, or make a new theme.
> As the lone UxD voice on this mailing list majority of the time, IMO we should not have a bunch of themes maintained in the
> trunk and keep adding more every time something new or updated comes along. The reason that theming was created in the first
> place was so that functionality was not tied to look and feel. Let's pull all but 2-3 out max and archive the rest on the Wiki.
> If anyone wants a theme, they can get it there. Adding a theme literally only takes a few minutes and be done on the fly on a
> running OFBiz installation. You've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
>
> Ryan L. Foster
> 801.671.0769
> [hidden email]
> ryanlfoster.com
>
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>
>> Le 21/01/2011 09:48, BJ Freeman a écrit :
>>
>>> as far as flatgrey I am with mike.
>>> keep the original and make the updated one flatgreyII.
>>
>> Create a jira issue, and add it your patch if you want if back. We can also start a discussion on this base.
>>
>> Anyway, as it was said before, books are based on stable versions, 9.04 or 10.04 in which is included the old flatgrey. So there
>> is no harm done from this point.
>>
>> One more thing, how can one be surprised if things are changing and he is not suscribing to dev and commit lists ?
>>
>> --
>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>> www.nereide.biz

Ruth Hoffman-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by Ryan Foster-3

Ryan:
Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ -
who isn't a commiter - I don't think) listens to anyone from the outside.
Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".

Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix
it". That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not
necessarily obsolete.

Best Regards,
Ruth

On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:

> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete overhaul. We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - that's it). This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without discussion and debate. We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>
> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to work. if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS changes. Also, if you look at the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January. Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>
> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme. Simply blindly following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>
>
> Ryan L. Foster
> 801.671.0769
> [hidden email]
> ryanlfoster.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>> Just my 2 cents.
>> Ruth
>>
>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>>
>>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those production systems when proposing changes.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>>> offbiz.
>>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>>> they do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>
>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>>>>> But why delete it? Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>>> on flatgrey, and their
>>>>> employees are used to it. At least keep it
>>>> around as flatgrey_old.
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>>> developer community decided to
>>>>>> update it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>>> are welcome to replace the
>>>>>> new one with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>>>>>> been completely redefined. What
>>>> happened? I thought it was actually
>>>>>>> the best theme that was very well
>>>> organized. Is there a way to get it
>>>>>>> back?
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Scott Gray-2

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

What utter rubbish, almost every time I want to make a non-trivial change the first thing I do is write an email to the dev list to gain input. Plenty of other committers do the exact same thing. If you feel you need proof of this then it wouldn't be difficult to give you examples.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 22/01/2011, at 7:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Ryan:
> Get real. Not a single commiter (with the exception of Jacques and BJ - who isn't a commiter - I don't think) listens to anyone from the outside.
> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".
>
> Here's another saying that I find useful: "If its not broke, don't fix it". That means that just because something is 10 years old, it is not necessarily obsolete.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ruth
>
> On 1/21/11 4:33 AM, Ryan Foster wrote:
>> While I appreciate the spirited debate, where were these voices over two weeks ago when Adrian and I can began working on refreshing the theme (and that is what it was, not a redesign, not a new theme, not a complete overhaul. We changed the header and footer, and made a few CSS changes - that's it). This wasn't done in a vacuum and it wasn't done without discussion and debate. We didn't get together in some secret back-room deal and decide "Hey let's get rid of Flat Grey and piss everyone off".
>>
>> Adrian proposed updating the theme to the mailing list back on the 29th of December, asked for feedback, suggestions and participation, and we went to work. if you ask me, 24 days is a really big "vacuum" for a couple of CSS changes. Also, if you look at the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092, there were 9 screenshots and 8 separate patches posted between the 4th and the 14th of January. Anyone could have grabbed those and monitored the progress.
>>
>> I agree that there should be backwards compatibility, I agree that there should stability, but for heaven's sake, it's just a theme. Simply blindly following a backwards compatibility mantra gives you outdated, useless software that was cutting edge 10 years ago, but is now the butt of developer jokes... I'm looking at you IE6.
>>
>>
>> Ryan L. Foster
>> 801.671.0769
>> [hidden email]
>> ryanlfoster.com
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>>>
>>>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those production systems when proposing changes.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>>>> offbiz.
>>>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>>>> they do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>
>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>>>>>> But why delete it? Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>>>> on flatgrey, and their
>>>>>> employees are used to it. At least keep it
>>>>> around as flatgrey_old.
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>>>> developer community decided to
>>>>>>> update it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>>>> are welcome to replace the
>>>>>>> new one with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>>>>>>> been completely redefined. What
>>>>> happened? I thought it was actually
>>>>>>>> the best theme that was very well
>>>>> organized. Is there a way to get it
>>>>>>>> back?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

BJ Freeman

Re: What happeded to the real theme?

In reply to this post by Erwan de FERRIERES

since during the first discussion I suggested this.
I find this a contradiction and an example of how designers reduce the ROI.
If this is acceptable, why was it not acceptable before the changes were
made.
to clarify
keep the original as flatgrey and the new one flatgreyII

=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Erwan de FERRIERES sent the following on 1/21/2011 1:11 AM:

> Le 21/01/2011 09:48, BJ Freeman a écrit :
>
>> as far as flatgrey I am with mike.
>> keep the original and make the updated one flatgreyII.
>
> Create a jira issue, and add it your patch if you want if back. We can
> also start a discussion on this base.
>
> Anyway, as it was said before, books are based on stable versions, 9.04
> or 10.04 in which is included the old flatgrey. So there is no harm done
> from this point.
>
> One more thing, how can one be surprised if things are changing and he
> is not suscribing to dev and commit lists ?
>

Brian Topping

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2

On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Personally, I stand by my other comment: "You guys don't have a clue".

Ruth, are you a committer to OFBiz? On any open source projects anywhere?

Nobody has an obligation to serve you or your needs. To say this kind of thing once might be construed constructively where people are interested in self-improvement, but this is going too far.

I don't know anything about the PMC, but *you* should find a support company to give your money to and let them advocate in your interests.

Most people do not get so angry about stuff like this unless they are losing money. If you are losing money because of these (and possibly other) changes, then that lost money could have been better spent on a committer who will watch out for your interests and make sure things run smoothly. Everyone wins in that case.

If you are not losing money by these changes, it completely escapes me why you care. One cannot both want new features, then make personal attacks when they are not exactly what someone wants. Unless, again, they are paying for support to have them developed.

It sounds to me like you saw a shiny new version, didn't test it before deploying, wiped out the previous deployment in the process, then had users complaining that something had changed... something you should have caught before deploying it in the first place.

As for my position, I'm just an outside observer with some common interests to everyone here. One of my interests is that these guys don't get pissed off and quit developing it at all. No more, no less.

Brian

Steve Fatula

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

>
>
> It sounds to me like you saw a shiny new version, didn't test it before deploying, wiped out the previous deployment in the process, then had users complaining that something had changed... something you should have caught before deploying it in the first place.
>
> As for my position, I'm just an outside observer with some common interests to everyone here. One of my interests is that these guys don't get pissed off and quit developing it at all. No more, no less.
>
> Brian

Couldn't say it any better, as another outside observer who just uses the product. Thanks to the devs for all their time and efforts.

Steve

123