plugin and hotdeploy
Locked
 
|
Now that the plugin is in place for ofbiz. Is there a difference between hotdeploy components and that of plugins components?
Thanks |
|
Are you referring to "Trunk"? If yes, then no there is no difference. We
will start discussing this in dev@ On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Wai <[hidden email]> wrote: > Now that the plugin is in place for ofbiz. Is there a difference between > hotdeploy components and that of plugins components? > Thanks > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble. > com/plugin-and-hotdeploy-tp4702922.html > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
I've added a new thread in the dev list for more discussion
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/discussion-With-plugins-is-hot-deploy-necessary-td4702976.html |
|
|
Just saw this: "Removes the now useless hot-deploy directory"
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9268 Useless? All the previous books, emails, articles, wikis, and blogs that guided folks on how to deploy a new app, or modify one has been completely wiped out by 2-3 folks on a short email discussion? Sorry, baffled. On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Wai <[hidden email]> wrote: > I've added a new thread in the dev list for more discussion > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/discussion-With-plugins- > is-hot-deploy-necessary-td4702976.html > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble. > com/plugin-and-hotdeploy-tp4702922p4702977.html > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your feedback and raising your concerns. Perhaps the word "useless" might not have been the best choice in the commit log. I would maybe use the word redundant instead. I would suggest that perhaps it is a rather minor thing to realize that everything is the same but under /plugins instead of /hot-deploy. So maybe this is not a big change that would take anyone hours or days to figure out :) It's just a different directory name for consistency's sake. Regarding discussions, I would like to highlight that this topic came about multiple times in multiple threads and there was consensus to proceed in order to unify how OFBiz is extended in addition to other benefits. Just search JIRAs and the ML for discussions on plugins and hot-deploy to get an idea. And by the way, this stuff is not left undocumented. Take a look at README.md and it will explain to you how to create and manage plugins in a good amount of detail. With respect to existing documentation, may I suggest that it is simply outdated and requires update? Books, wikis, blogs and even code gets outdated eventually and hence everything should be revised and updated. If you stop changing code just because there is material out there then you cannot improve anything! I would suggest that this is a good opportunity for book authors to update their material and publish new books. Finally, there were massive changes in OFBiz over the past year or two far beyond just hot-deploy. Examples? Gradle, Unit-Tests, Plugin Manager, Remote Libraries, Deprecated Components, Deprecated Minilang, rename domain to org.apache.ofbiz, and many more! All of this material needs to go into new books and publications. Cheers, Taher Alkhateeb On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > Just saw this: "Removes the now useless hot-deploy directory" > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9268 > > Useless? All the previous books, emails, articles, wikis, and blogs that > guided folks on how to deploy a new app, or modify one has been completely > wiped out by 2-3 folks on a short email discussion? > > Sorry, baffled. > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Wai <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I've added a new thread in the dev list for more discussion > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/discussion-With-plugins- > > is-hot-deploy-necessary-td4702976.html > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble. > > com/plugin-and-hotdeploy-tp4702922p4702977.html > > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Z
Not sure if hot-deploy folder is also removed in release 16.11.
We can update confluence with a notice on the change, in each affected wiki page. Similar to what was done when Gradle is introduced in release 16.11 and onwards. The special-purpose and hot-deploy folders are essentially combined into a plugins folder which is easier understood by new users, in my own opinion. Regards, James Yong
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Z
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...] All the previous books, emails, articles, wikis, and blogs that > guided folks on how to deploy a new app, or modify one has been completely > wiped out [...] Software documentation is always written for a target version of a software product and most of the users understand and accept that some of the information in an older book may not be applicable to newer versions of the software. Jacopo |
|
|
How about if we start reviewing the documents and update them something
like for which versions those documents applicable. Or may be overall rearrangement of docs by version. If we go for overall rearrangement by version then we may have redundant documentation in most cases. So I would suggest to add supporting version in the title, or on the top of doc or bottom. May be we can discuss and come with some best practice to maintain the version. After that whenever we work on any document we would maintain the practice, which includes text, image, video, audio all documents. If community agree then I would like to start on this and start updating few most frequently used docs. Thanks! Rishi Solanki Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > [...] All the previous books, emails, articles, wikis, and blogs that > > guided folks on how to deploy a new app, or modify one has been > completely > > wiped out [...] > > > Software documentation is always written for a target version of a software > product and most of the users understand and accept that some of the > information in an older book may not be applicable to newer versions of the > software. > > Jacopo > |
Administrator
|
Hi Rishi,
That's quite a good idea and good news. IIRW, there is already a start for such things, right? BTW, I think we should use as much as possible the Confluence history to avoid to duplicate things and have to maintain them. My 2cts Jacques Le 24/04/2017 à 12:26, Rishi Solanki a écrit : > How about if we start reviewing the documents and update them something > like for which versions those documents applicable. Or may be overall > rearrangement of docs by version. > > If we go for overall rearrangement by version then we may have redundant > documentation in most cases. So I would suggest to add supporting version > in the title, or on the top of doc or bottom. May be we can discuss and > come with some best practice to maintain the version. > > After that whenever we work on any document we would maintain the practice, > which includes text, image, video, audio all documents. If community agree > then I would like to start on this and start updating few most frequently > used docs. > > Thanks! > > > Rishi Solanki > Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > Direct: +91-9893287847 > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> [...] All the previous books, emails, articles, wikis, and blogs that >>> guided folks on how to deploy a new app, or modify one has been >> completely >>> wiped out [...] >> >> Software documentation is always written for a target version of a software >> product and most of the users understand and accept that some of the >> information in an older book may not be applicable to newer versions of the >> software. >> >> Jacopo >> |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-5
> Software documentation is always written for a target version of a
software > product and most of the users understand and accept that some of the > information in an older book may not be applicable to newer versions of the > software. That is not the point. Far as I can tell, there is no reason why you couldn't keep a "functioning" hot-deploy directory and still encourage folks to migrate to plugins. Still, there are a lot of people and companies that are NOT running the bleeding edge version of ofbiz, and have no immediate plans to migrate and convert. They have employees and training systems, which obviously use and refer to previously written books and wikis. This is my point. Do no harm. Keep things backward compatible as much as possible. There are more users than dev folks. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > [...] All the previous books, emails, articles, wikis, and blogs that > > guided folks on how to deploy a new app, or modify one has been > completely > > wiped out [...] > > > Software documentation is always written for a target version of a software > product and most of the users understand and accept that some of the > information in an older book may not be applicable to newer versions of the > software. > > Jacopo > |
|
|
In reply to this post by james yong
james yong wrote "The special-purpose and hot-deploy folders are essentially combined into a plugins folder which is easier understood by new users, in my own opinion." I disagree strongly with this statement. Historically, special-purpose was just that, components which are not generally used by most users. hot-deploy is (was) used by nearly everyone to put custom components used by their application. Having a single plugin folder that combines both hot-deploy and special-purpose seems to me to be a very bad idea. Why not just rename hot-deploy to plugin and leave special-purpose as it is. Makes directory management much easier to not have the 20 odd components in special-purpose combined with the few in hot-deploy. Skip |
|
|
Hi Skip,
If you check trunk, you will notice that hot-deploy is removed and specialpurpose is renamed to plugins and it is _empty_ On Apr 24, 2017 9:41 PM, "Skip" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > james yong wrote "The special-purpose and hot-deploy folders are > essentially > combined into a > plugins folder which is easier understood by new users, in my own opinion." > > I disagree strongly with this statement. Historically, special-purpose was > just that, components which are not generally used by most users. > hot-deploy is (was) used by nearly everyone to put custom components used > by > their application. > > Having a single plugin folder that combines both hot-deploy and > special-purpose seems to me to be a very bad idea. Why not just rename > hot-deploy to plugin and leave special-purpose as it is. Makes directory > management much easier to not have the 20 odd components in special-purpose > combined with the few in hot-deploy. > > > Skip > > > |
|
|
Good discussion for sure.
IMO, no one would like to use Trunk for an ongoing development of custom apps. Choosing an official release helps here. OFBiz is going through a major phase of improvements and all of these are being done only in trunk, which is perfectly fine. If you are subscribed to OFBiz Wiki(Confluence) Daily Updates, you will observe there are ongoing changes to the documentation being taken care of. I agree that there will be some effort required to keep it up to date and to make it ready for future releases. We should define a documentation framework as well, that can be maintained along with the code in trunk, which is available to users when a specific release is announced. When one application is to upgraded to any of the latest releases of OFBiz, there are definitely a bunch of changes you have to take care of, this time it would require some changes to the placement of custom applications, which is not going to be a big effort. In the software world, making a small change is a big deal when it has many users, but sometimes you have to take the risks because it's going to benefit users in future. I personally have witnessed long email threads on dev list before making these changes in directory structures or replacement of tools like from ant to gradle. So yes IMHO, change is always not that easy. Best regards, Pranay Pandey Senior Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Taher Alkhateeb < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Skip, > > If you check trunk, you will notice that hot-deploy is removed and > specialpurpose is renamed to plugins and it is _empty_ > > On Apr 24, 2017 9:41 PM, "Skip" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > james yong wrote "The special-purpose and hot-deploy folders are > > essentially > > combined into a > > plugins folder which is easier understood by new users, in my own > opinion." > > > > I disagree strongly with this statement. Historically, special-purpose > was > > just that, components which are not generally used by most users. > > hot-deploy is (was) used by nearly everyone to put custom components used > > by > > their application. > > > > Having a single plugin folder that combines both hot-deploy and > > special-purpose seems to me to be a very bad idea. Why not just rename > > hot-deploy to plugin and leave special-purpose as it is. Makes directory > > management much easier to not have the 20 odd components in > special-purpose > > combined with the few in hot-deploy. > > > > > > Skip > > > > > > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |