What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Mike Z]

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?

[Adrian Crum]

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?
>

[Mike Z]

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?
>>
>

[Adrian Crum]

The updated theme moved the user preferences to the footer and changed
the look. Other than that, the functionality is still the same - all
menus and buttons are still in the same location.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:38 PM, Mike wrote:

> 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]

see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092
look in eclipse for history of the flatgrey folder
you can revert to 1044065 which is just before the Jquery merge
or you can download a zip file before 1044065 then copy the flat grey to
your copy.


=========================
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 3:21 PM:

> 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]

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?
>>>
>>
>

[Adrian Crum-2]

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?
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

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?
>>>>>
>>
>
>
>

[Mike Z]

Not to completely agree with Ruth and BJ [grin]...

However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing documentation of
OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and countless
other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of documentation shows the
flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition, there are
(probably) various other organizational training manuals that exist
which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click here, etc.).
What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do we also
have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about their training
manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.

So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one that's the
issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other themes and I still
prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought out
navigation system.   Dave did an excellent job tying all the functions
together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple tabs really work
for me.

It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not break the
backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting infrastructure.


On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Before saying anything else, let me clarify that I don't disagree with this sentiment.

The big question seems to be what is the "clue" that everyone wishes the PMC has?

Personally, I now disagree with the whole model and doubt any redemption for it. Even if there were perfect people on the PMC (which is clearly impossible, and the current PMC is mostly made up of attempts to do anything to get as many people involved as possible): when there is no design to implement to and the scope is not very narrowly defined it is impossible to keep everyone happy. That's why most ASF projects are not like OFBiz with broad scope and business focus and a lot of design to be done, they are generally implementations of public specifications.

Is that the clue?

Maybe a better question is: what is the dream world people think they are going to find here?

Why is anyone surprised?

Well, for those interested the model I'm going for now is quite different, see the "Model: License? Resources?" section on the www.moqui.org web site.

That said, I mentioned above that I don't disagree with the sentiment. However, I think it is presented in a piss poor way by everyone who is acting like a whining little child here. Get a life. If it's a big deal to you then solve the problem and stop complaining and whining. Get a grip on reality. There are all sorts of things you could do about this that don't require trying to push the project. Anyone could grab the old theme and post it to any of dozens of free hosting places, or just on a wiki page or Jira issue. People could even collaborate to reduce the burden on any individual. This isn't rocket science.

This is what is so ridiculous. Almost no one cares about handling general needs over specific ones and keeping things flexible. Almost no one cares about what anyone else needs. And why should it be any different? Those who think things should be a certain or another just want a free ride and won't lift a finger beyond childish complaints and personal attacks to get anything done. This sort of situation is EXACTLY what should be expected in this model.

Still, there are solutions to all of this and rewards for those creative and hard-working enough to get them done. There is pretty much always a solution once the real problem is confessed. There's also a market out there for pretty much anything related to this, since currently there aren't many people using some sort of violence to stop any of this. That's the beauty of the real world.

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:38 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?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

[Adrian Crum-2]

I don't see where any backward compatibility was broken - unless you are referring to the screenshots in Ruth's books. By the way, I believe those books are based on release 9.04 - which has the previous version of the Flat Grey theme. It's also interesting to note that the release 9.04 Flat Grey theme replaced an earlier (uglier IMO) one.

The updated Flat Grey theme has all of the same elements in the same locations - with the exception of the user preference settings links. The new theme has new colors and background images, otherwise it's the same.

-Adrian

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

> Not to completely agree with Ruth and
> BJ [grin]...
>
> However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing
> documentation of
> OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and
> countless
> other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of
> documentation shows the
> flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition,
> there are
> (probably) various other organizational training manuals
> that exist
> which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click
> here, etc.).
> What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do
> we also
> have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about
> their training
> manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.
>
> So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one
> that's the
> issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other
> themes and I still
> prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought
> out
> navigation system.   Dave did an excellent
> job tying all the functions
> together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple
> tabs really work
> for me.
>
> It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not
> break the
> backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting
> infrastructure.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]>
> 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?
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[David E. Jones-2]

I couldn't disagree more. The OFBiz code base is a NIGHTMARE because of attempts at backward compatibility. This makes it incredibly difficult to customize because everything you look at has high levels of redundancy (causing all sorts of bugs and inconsistencies), and everything you touch breaks a couple of other things.

What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are totally abandoned in favor of making something better.

However, in a community driven project that just ain't gonna happen, for lots of reasons.

So, those of you who like backward compatibility just look around that the incredible bulk of the project that has caused. OFBiz could be about 1/4 the size it is now with the same, or even more, functionality.

Is that really worth all the backward compatibility?

What if all of that bulk and ugliness and confusion causing stuff kills the project as leaner and better alternatives become available?

Is that really worth the backward compatibility?

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Mike wrote:

> Not to completely agree with Ruth and BJ [grin]...
>
> However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing documentation of
> OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and countless
> other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of documentation shows the
> flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition, there are
> (probably) various other organizational training manuals that exist
> which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click here, etc.).
> What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do we also
> have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about their training
> manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.
>
> So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one that's the
> issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other themes and I still
> prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought out
> navigation system.   Dave did an excellent job tying all the functions
> together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple tabs really work
> for me.
>
> It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not break the
> backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting infrastructure.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Adrian Crum-2]

Technology continues to march forward. Some people find it hard to keep up.

-Adrian

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

> Before saying anything else, let me clarify that I don't
> disagree with this sentiment.
>
> The big question seems to be what is the "clue" that
> everyone wishes the PMC has?
>
> Personally, I now disagree with the whole model and doubt
> any redemption for it. Even if there were perfect people on
> the PMC (which is clearly impossible, and the current PMC is
> mostly made up of attempts to do anything to get as many
> people involved as possible): when there is no design to
> implement to and the scope is not very narrowly defined it
> is impossible to keep everyone happy. That's why most ASF
> projects are not like OFBiz with broad scope and business
> focus and a lot of design to be done, they are generally
> implementations of public specifications.
>
> Is that the clue?
>
> Maybe a better question is: what is the dream world people
> think they are going to find here?
>
> Why is anyone surprised?
>
> Well, for those interested the model I'm going for now is
> quite different, see the "Model: License? Resources?"
> section on the www.moqui.org web site.
>
> That said, I mentioned above that I don't disagree with the
> sentiment. However, I think it is presented in a piss poor
> way by everyone who is acting like a whining little child
> here. Get a life. If it's a big deal to you then solve the
> problem and stop complaining and whining. Get a grip on
> reality. There are all sorts of things you could do about
> this that don't require trying to push the project. Anyone
> could grab the old theme and post it to any of dozens of
> free hosting places, or just on a wiki page or Jira issue.
> People could even collaborate to reduce the burden on any
> individual. This isn't rocket science.
>
> This is what is so ridiculous. Almost no one cares about
> handling general needs over specific ones and keeping things
> flexible. Almost no one cares about what anyone else needs.
> And why should it be any different? Those who think things
> should be a certain or another just want a free ride and
> won't lift a finger beyond childish complaints and personal
> attacks to get anything done. This sort of situation is
> EXACTLY what should be expected in this model.
>
> Still, there are solutions to all of this and rewards for
> those creative and hard-working enough to get them done.
> There is pretty much always a solution once the real problem
> is confessed. There's also a market out there for pretty
> much anything related to this, since currently there aren't
> many people using some sort of violence to stop any of this.
> That's the beauty of the real world.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:38 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?
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

[Adrian Crum-2]

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.

Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

-Adrian



     

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
>
> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

Okay, here's the new thread.

To kick it off there are probably lots of facets of this to discuss, but the biggest question (IMO) is: what will we get rid of? Another way of looking at that is: how will we decide what to get rid of?

This gets even trickier as time goes on and new things are introduced that are alternatives to old things. One example is the FTL macro based widget renderers... the old ones can go away. Another would by the Query Builder that Scott was working on (OFBIZ-4053), and that could result in getting rid of a bunch of stuff in the Delegator and GenericDelegator. There are also hundreds of methods that simply the same as another method in the same class but with fewer arguments and defaults for the missing arguments, and tons of those can and should go away (many are there for backward compatibility only).

But is any of this really doable in OFBiz given desires and priorities of the community?

Heck, we have complaints about EVERYTHING. Constant complaints about every little change. If all of the delegator.find* methods are suddenly gone... just imagine the complaints (well, not to mention the refactoring of code in OFBiz itself!).

We have complaints about formatting changes in code. We have complaints about any and all refactoring changes (moving code, renaming, splitting up or combining methods or classes).

What about getting rid of the dozens of totally useless util classes in OFBiz? Most of them could (and maybe should) be tossed in favor of other open source stuff, or even better in favor of new features in Java or that are handled inherently in Groovy or other tools used a lot in OFBiz.

How about making things more consistent in OFBiz by using groovy for all expressions and such? We could get rid of the BSH defaults, the UEL stuff, and so on. Yeah, I know a lot of work has gone into these things... but consider the state of things now and the pain involved in using some of these cumbersome tools.

Of course, is this even doable... and worth it? Could we even retest all of the code that would be affected by these lower level changes? Could we do this without huge efforts in branches? Because the framework and applications are tied together we can't easily advance the framework freely and then once we like it do a feature freeze and start getting the applications/etc to catch up.

Stepping back I guess the real question is: can we even do these sorts of things at this point in the life of the project?

The jQuery branch is an interesting example. I think that worked because it was a change with relatively few touch points, and only a couple of people were interested in it so everyone else left them alone while they worked on it. But what about bigger changes that result in a need for changes in thousands of lines of existing code?

-David

[Adrian Crum-2]

Cool - thanks.

I agree there are a lot of things that can be changed that will improve the project greatly - but at the same time those changes will break backward compatibility. I'm sure many of the developers have lists like David's that contain things they would like to change, but they are hesitant to do so because it might break backward compatibility.

Before this thread gets inundated with developer's wish lists, I would like to suggest that we address one single simple issue first:

Would you, as an end user of OFBiz, knowing that the OFBiz project could be improved greatly - but at the cost of some backward incompatibility - accept the changes? If yes, how often would backwards-incompatible changes be acceptable? David suggested major revisions. Is that reasonable? Any other ideas?

I'm asking end users - not committers or PMC members (we've already had this discussion).

My experience with the developer community has convinced me that they are open to the opinions and suggestions of end users. So let's discuss, debate, reach an agreement, and move forward from there.

-Adrian


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

> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> What the project needs is cutoff points at major
> revision
> >> releases after which attempts at backward
> compatibility are
> >> totally abandoned in favor of making something
> better.
> >
> > Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new
> thread?
>
> Okay, here's the new thread.
>
> To kick it off there are probably lots of facets of this to
> discuss, but the biggest question (IMO) is: what will we get
> rid of? Another way of looking at that is: how will we
> decide what to get rid of?
>
> This gets even trickier as time goes on and new things are
> introduced that are alternatives to old things. One example
> is the FTL macro based widget renderers... the old ones can
> go away. Another would by the Query Builder that Scott was
> working on (OFBIZ-4053), and that could result in getting
> rid of a bunch of stuff in the Delegator and
> GenericDelegator. There are also hundreds of methods that
> simply the same as another method in the same class but with
> fewer arguments and defaults for the missing arguments, and
> tons of those can and should go away (many are there for
> backward compatibility only).
>
> But is any of this really doable in OFBiz given desires and
> priorities of the community?
>
> Heck, we have complaints about EVERYTHING. Constant
> complaints about every little change. If all of the
> delegator.find* methods are suddenly gone... just imagine
> the complaints (well, not to mention the refactoring of code
> in OFBiz itself!).
>
> We have complaints about formatting changes in code. We
> have complaints about any and all refactoring changes
> (moving code, renaming, splitting up or combining methods or
> classes).
>
> What about getting rid of the dozens of totally useless
> util classes in OFBiz? Most of them could (and maybe should)
> be tossed in favor of other open source stuff, or even
> better in favor of new features in Java or that are handled
> inherently in Groovy or other tools used a lot in OFBiz.
>
> How about making things more consistent in OFBiz by using
> groovy for all expressions and such? We could get rid of the
> BSH defaults, the UEL stuff, and so on. Yeah, I know a lot
> of work has gone into these things... but consider the state
> of things now and the pain involved in using some of these
> cumbersome tools.
>
> Of course, is this even doable... and worth it? Could we
> even retest all of the code that would be affected by these
> lower level changes? Could we do this without huge efforts
> in branches? Because the framework and applications are tied
> together we can't easily advance the framework freely and
> then once we like it do a feature freeze and start getting
> the applications/etc to catch up.
>
> Stepping back I guess the real question is: can we even do
> these sorts of things at this point in the life of the
> project?
>
> The jQuery branch is an interesting example. I think that
> worked because it was a change with relatively few touch
> points, and only a couple of people were interested in it so
> everyone else left them alone while they worked on it. But
> what about bigger changes that result in a need for changes
> in thousands of lines of existing code?
>
> -David
>
>
>

     

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
>
> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the existing system in legacy mode and start a new project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects is it doesn't take advantage of any recent packaging technologies like Spring or OSGi or presentation technologies that would work well with recent browser capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal solution remains one that was architected before any of these technologies were mature.

Brian

[Adrian Crum-2]

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.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Brian Topping <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> What the project needs is cutoff points at major
> revision
> >> releases after which attempts at backward
> compatibility are
> >> totally abandoned in favor of making something
> better.
> >
> > Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new
> thread?
>
> Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the
> existing system in legacy mode and start a new
> project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is
> it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects
> is it doesn't take advantage of any recent packaging
> technologies like Spring or OSGi or presentation
> technologies that would work well with recent browser
> capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal
> solution remains one that was architected before any of
> these technologies were mature.
>
> Brian

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:30 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
>>
>> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?
>
> Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the existing system in legacy mode and start a new project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects is it doesn't take advantage of any recent packaging technologies like Spring or OSGi or presentation technologies that would work well with recent browser capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal solution remains one that was architected before any of these technologies were mature.

When you say this do you mean to start over and rebuild the OFBiz business/application functionality on an existing full-featured framework (or as close as current frameworks come to that...) like the JBoss Seam stack?

Or do you mean to create a new framework using some of the newer tools that are available? If so, could you be more specific about the tools you'd like to you? You mentioned presentation technologies, which ones do you like?

In a way I'm doing something that might be like what you are suggesting (depending on details of what you had in mind). Right now there is no framework that uses the same concepts and design goals as the OFBiz Framework, but there are many new tools it could use and many cleanups and redesigns the framework could use, so I have started a new framework project called Moqui (www.moqui.org) that is a refresh of the OFBiz Framework as a stand-alone package (and it uses Groovy a LOT as the default language for expressions, XML actions are translated to Groovy, and the framework itself is implemented in Groovy).

Once that is further along I plan to start a _separate_ project that has a data model and some basic business services. And once that is further along I plan to start, or work with others to start, a series of domain-specific application projects that are all build on the same data model and framework, and can share data with other applications and run in the same container and so on.

Anyway... in spite of actions in that direction I'd be interested in seeing more thoughts that people have on the topic.

-David

[David E. Jones-2]

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.

-David