why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[Chris Snow-3]

Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:

1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.

Any more that I have missed?


--
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP

Tel: [phone]
Mob: [phone]
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk

[BJ Freeman]

I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
for a while, if I remember correctly.

#2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
reasons I came to ofbiz.
That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
A lot of work has been done in that area.
But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.

I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.

I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.




Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:

> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>
> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>
> Any more that I have missed?
>
>

[james_sg]

Does anyone know the status of this?

--james

BJ Freeman wrote

I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
for a while, if I remember correctly.

#2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
reasons I came to ofbiz.
That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
A lot of work has been done in that area.
But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.

I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.

I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.




Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>
> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>
> Any more that I have missed?
>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

A long time ago I did work on this, but I haven't for years. The topic has come up a few times, and I like the idea, which is why in my more recent effort I'm starting with an independent framework (Moqui) that will never have applications in the same project that it might depend on.

There have been a few reviews and efforts here and there to make the framework independent again, ie to be fully functional without the applications components in place. I'm not aware of anyone working on that now. Right now it seems like the goal that is presenting a challenge is to avoid new dependencies from the framework components to the applications components.

Perhaps someday this will become a priority again in the community, but the fact of the matter is that people work on and contribute things that are of interest or use to them, and this state of things means simply that not enough people who are willing to contribute find a use or interest in this... :)

-David


On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:24 PM, james_sg wrote:

>
> Does anyone know the status of this?
>
> --james
>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>
>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>
>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>
>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>
>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>
>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[BJ Freeman]

the only one that seems active in this is Bruno
one such effort.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894

james_sg sent the following on 9/16/2010 7:24 PM:

>
> Does anyone know the status of this?
>
> --james
>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>
>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>
>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>
>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>
>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>
>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[james_sg]

I think a common agreement is needed among developers on whether OFBiz should have a standalone framework.

If a common agreement is reached, then we need to have a common understanding on how things should be done, so that people plays by the rule.

Which function to move into the standalone framework can be discussed later. The one with the least dependence can go in first. At least, things are moving...

My 2 cents.

--james

BJ Freeman wrote

the only one that seems active in this is Bruno
one such effort.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894

james_sg sent the following on 9/16/2010 7:24 PM:
>
> Does anyone know the status of this?
>
> --james
>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>
>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>
>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>
>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>
>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>
>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Bruno Busco]

Hi James,
I did write a wiki page to define how the framework only distribution should
be shaped.
Following that there was some mail thread in which we discussed about. Some
of us was not on the same page but we did not agree on something different
that could be written updating the wiki page.

You can find the wiki page here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution

Fill free to express your opinion and help on that.

A contribute that will gine IMO a great help on framework independence is
also:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373

Scott is working on that and I am looking forward to it.

-Bruno


2010/9/17 james_sg <[hidden email]>

>
> I think a common agreement is needed among developers on whether OFBiz
> should
> have a standalone framework.
>
> If a common agreement is reached, then we need to have a common
> understanding on how things should be done, so that people plays by the
> rule.
>
> Which function to move into the standalone framework can be discussed
> later.
> The one with the least dependence can go in first. At least, things are
> moving...
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> --james
>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
> >
> > the only one that seems active in this is Bruno
> > one such effort.
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894
> >
> > james_sg sent the following on 9/16/2010 7:24 PM:
> >>
> >> Does anyone know the status of this?
> >>
> >> --james
> >>
> >>
> >> BJ Freeman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
> >>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
> >>>
> >>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
> >>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
> >>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
> >>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
> >>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
> >>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
> >>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
> >>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
> >>>
> >>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
> >>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
> >>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
> >>>> helping
> >>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
> >>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
> >>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
> >>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any more that I have missed?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543310.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[chris snow]

Hi James,

I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
the pages I put together documenting my steps:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW

I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
more explicit and controllable -
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/

David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
repository.

Cheers,

Chris

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Does anyone know the status of this?
>
> --james
>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>
>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>
>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>
>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>
>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>
>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

We (Erwan and me mostly) did some work to remove existing dependencies from the Example component there are still some but very easy
to remove

Also note this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies

I think we should group all pages (with Chris's) under a main page in Wiki (though I already tried to link them with links from each
page to the other, but it's not good enough. It's like when you relate issues in Jira, it helps but is not clearly seen by
everybody)

And have a hat Jira issue as well because of
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867 existing also.

My 2cts

Jacques

From: "Bruno Busco" <[hidden email]>

> Hi James,
> I did write a wiki page to define how the framework only distribution should
> be shaped.
> Following that there was some mail thread in which we discussed about. Some
> of us was not on the same page but we did not agree on something different
> that could be written updating the wiki page.
>
> You can find the wiki page here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution
>
> Fill free to express your opinion and help on that.
>
> A contribute that will gine IMO a great help on framework independence is
> also:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373
>
> Scott is working on that and I am looking forward to it.
>
> -Bruno
>
>
> 2010/9/17 james_sg <[hidden email]>
>
>>
>> I think a common agreement is needed among developers on whether OFBiz
>> should
>> have a standalone framework.
>>
>> If a common agreement is reached, then we need to have a common
>> understanding on how things should be done, so that people plays by the
>> rule.
>>
>> Which function to move into the standalone framework can be discussed
>> later.
>> The one with the least dependence can go in first. At least, things are
>> moving...
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> --james
>>
>>
>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>> >
>> > the only one that seems active in this is Bruno
>> > one such effort.
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894
>> >
>> > james_sg sent the following on 9/16/2010 7:24 PM:
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone know the status of this?
>> >>
>> >> --james
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BJ Freeman wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>> >>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>> >>>
>> >>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>> >>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>> >>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>> >>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>> >>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>> >>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>> >>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>> >>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>> >>>
>> >>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>> >>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>> >>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
>> >>>> helping
>> >>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>> >>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>> >>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>> >>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Any more that I have missed?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543310.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

[james_sg]

Hi Bruno,

My opinions as below:

For now, I will call the standalone framework as framework project and the rest of the components as applications project.

1. As the current framework embeds servlet container like Tomcat and Jetty, codes related to servlet containers stay with the standalone framework.

2. Webtools and Example should be in the framework project.

2. Party application shouldn't be in framework. But it can be decoupled from the rest of the applications.

3. It is also alrite for Party application to reference other applications like Order, but
    a. links to other application, should be disabled in realtime if the other application component is not loaded.
    b. the framework should inject scripts (like css and js) into the header (similar to what wicket and click framework is doing) if screens from other application is used. Likewise, if screens from other application are called without the applications being loaded, the framework should provide some useful screen messages when the screen is loaded.

4. The application project should contain the compiled framework without its source code. In the long run, it should be easy to simply drop the framework into the applications project, or the applications project into the framework.

5. Themes can go with the framework with a default theme, and the rest as adds-on.

6. The framework project can have more frequent releases than the application project, while keeping the goals for the framework project in alignment with the applications project as what currently is.

- james

Bruno Busco wrote

Hi James,
I did write a wiki page to define how the framework only distribution should
be shaped.
Following that there was some mail thread in which we discussed about. Some
of us was not on the same page but we did not agree on something different
that could be written updating the wiki page.

You can find the wiki page here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution

Fill free to express your opinion and help on that.

A contribute that will gine IMO a great help on framework independence is
also:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373

Scott is working on that and I am looking forward to it.

-Bruno

[james_sg]

Hi Chris,

I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get sorted out when the common agreement is there.

I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.

-james

chris snow wrote

Hi James,

I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
the pages I put together documenting my steps:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW

I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
more explicit and controllable -
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/

David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
repository.

Cheers,

Chris

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know the status of this?
>
> --james
>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>
>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>
>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>
>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>
>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control helping
>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>
>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[chris snow]

If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
give you framework independence.

I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.

I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get
> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>
> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>
> -james
>
>
> chris snow wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
>> in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
>> too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
>> the pages I put together documenting my steps:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW
>>
>> I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
>> ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
>> some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
>> project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
>> that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
>> interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
>> more explicit and controllable -
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/
>>
>> David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
>> all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
>> repository.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know the status of this?
>>>
>>> --james
>>>
>>>
>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>>>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>>>
>>>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>>>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>>>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>>>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>>>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>>>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>>>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>>>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>>>
>>>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>>>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
>>>>> helping
>>>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543697.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[BJ Freeman]

to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
like party, but just the tools.
so base layer is Entity and service engine.
Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
next layer is Webtools
next layer is security and common

A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
application.



chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:

> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
> give you framework independence.
>
> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>
> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get
>> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>>
>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>>
>> -james
>>
>>
>> chris snow wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
>>> in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
>>> too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
>>> the pages I put together documenting my steps:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW
>>>
>>> I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
>>> ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
>>> some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
>>> project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
>>> that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
>>> interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
>>> more explicit and controllable -
>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/
>>>
>>> David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
>>> all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know the status of this?
>>>>
>>>> --james
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>>>>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>>>>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>>>>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>>>>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>>>>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>>>>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>>>>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>>>>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from the
>>>>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>>>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
>>>>>> helping
>>>>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into ofbiz.
>>>>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>>>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>>>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543697.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

[chris snow]

I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.

Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.

(also there would be a module for Birt)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
> like party, but just the tools.
> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
> next layer is Webtools
> next layer is security and common
>
> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
> application.
>
>
>
> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>
>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>> give you framework independence.
>>
>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
>> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
>> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
>> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
>> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
>> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>>
>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
>> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get
>>> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>>>
>>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>>>
>>> -james
>>>
>>>
>>> chris snow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>> I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
>>>> in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
>>>> too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
>>>> the pages I put together documenting my steps:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW
>>>>
>>>> I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
>>>> ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
>>>> some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
>>>> project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
>>>> that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
>>>> interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
>>>> more explicit and controllable -
>>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/
>>>>
>>>> David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
>>>> all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know the status of this?
>>>>>
>>>>> --james
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>>>>>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>>>>>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>>>>>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>>>>>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>>>>>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>>>>>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>>>>>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>>>>>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into
>>>>>>> ofbiz.
>>>>>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>>>>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>>>>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543697.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>
>

[BJ Freeman]

Entity and service are seperate modules as they stand now.
I would branch and leave ofbiz if the entity module was removed.
it and how it relates to db and UI is why I came to ofbiz.
I rejected hibernate and want nothing to do with them.


=========================
BJ Freeman  <http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
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
chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 6:32 AM:

> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>
> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>
> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
>> like party, but just the tools.
>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>> next layer is Webtools
>> next layer is security and common
>>
>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
>> application.
>>
>>
>>
>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>>
>>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>>> give you framework independence.
>>>
>>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
>>> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
>>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
>>> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
>>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
>>> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
>>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
>>> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
>>> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
>>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
>>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
>>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>>>
>>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
>>> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get
>>>> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>>>>
>>>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>>>>
>>>> -james
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> chris snow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>> I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
>>>>> in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
>>>>> too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
>>>>> the pages I put together documenting my steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
>>>>> ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
>>>>> some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
>>>>> project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
>>>>> that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
>>>>> interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
>>>>> more explicit and controllable -
>>>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/
>>>>>
>>>>> David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
>>>>> all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
>>>>> repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know the status of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --james
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>>>>>>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>>>>>>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>>>>>>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>>>>>>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>>>>>>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>>>>>>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>>>>>>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>>>>>>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into
>>>>>>>> ofbiz.
>>>>>>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>>>>>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>>>>>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543697.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

Hi Chris,

Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses POJOs to represent data?

Thanks
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:

> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>
> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>
> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
>> like party, but just the tools.
>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>> next layer is Webtools
>> next layer is security and common
>>
>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
>> application.
>>
>>
>>
>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>>
>>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>>> give you framework independence.
>>>
>>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
>>> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
>>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
>>> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
>>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
>>> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
>>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
>>> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
>>> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
>>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
>>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
>>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>>>
>>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
>>> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get
>>>> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>>>>
>>>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>>>>
>>>> -james
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> chris snow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>> I spent a lot of time looking at this and came to the conclusion that
>>>>> in 10.04 the dependencies between framework and applications became
>>>>> too intertwined to make a separate 10.04 framework.  Here are some of
>>>>> the pages I put together documenting my steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/eIOJ
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/nYTW
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't used ofbiz for a while, however recently I started using
>>>>> ofbiz 9.04 and I may take another look at using 9.04 as the basis for
>>>>> some development effort to make ofbiz more modular (e.g. split the
>>>>> project up maven style and make the entity engine a separate project
>>>>> that can be used independently of ofbiz).  There was also a
>>>>> interesting work by Raj to use OSGi to make the dependencies in ofbiz
>>>>> more explicit and controllable -
>>>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/
>>>>>
>>>>> David's new project is very interesting, because he will be 'vetting'
>>>>> all code that gets committed, which doesn't happen with the ofbiz svn
>>>>> repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:24 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know the status of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --james
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am for standalone framework. David has been working on that project
>>>>>>> for a while, if I remember correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #2 bothers me though. The design of ofbiz was that the entity was the
>>>>>>> controlling factor for creating DB and UI. I was one of the major
>>>>>>> reasons I came to ofbiz.
>>>>>>> That said, any work that wants to be done on UI integration that makes
>>>>>>> ofbiz look classy, I think should be the focus.
>>>>>>> A lot of work has been done in that area.
>>>>>>> But integrating other UI interfaces that keep the design idea of the
>>>>>>> entity being to controlling focus is what I would like to see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see ofbiz being object oriented in the normal sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see the effort for the help files and a easily understood UI from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> user point of view being the main factors in promoting ofbiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris Snow sent the following on 2/24/2010 10:47 PM:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are some benefits of a 10.04 standalone framework release:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Standalone framework users would be a form of quality control
>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>> to ensure more incorrect dependencies don't find there way into
>>>>>>>> ofbiz.
>>>>>>>> 2) we would be able to promote the framework in its own right thus
>>>>>>>> competing with OpenERP's OpenObject platform
>>>>>>>> 3) a much larger potential user base than ecommerce or erp users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any more that I have missed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543258.html
>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2543697.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

[chris snow]

Hi Scott, it was just an example. The point I was trying to make is that by
making the entity engine a separate module, the implementation doesn't
matter as long as the entity engine module fullfilled its api contract.  One
of the benefits of this modular approach is that it would enable developers
or are interested in working on the entity engine could do so without having
to first isolate the persistence code from the configuration code.

On 18 Sep 2010 06:49, "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with hibernate
considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses POJOs to
represent data?

Thanks
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com


On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:

> I would see entity engine and service engine as se...

[james_sg]

Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points about Cayenne:
1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated Generic Objects are implicitly saved.
6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz does that automatically.

If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.

Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.

Regards,
James

Scott Gray-2 wrote

Hi Chris,

Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses POJOs to represent data?

Thanks
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:

> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>
> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>
> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
>> like party, but just the tools.
>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>> next layer is Webtools
>> next layer is security and common
>>
>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
>> application.
>>
>>
>>
>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>>
>>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>>> give you framework independence.
>>>
>>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
>>> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
>>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
>>> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
>>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
>>> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
>>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
>>> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
>>> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
>>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
>>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
>>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>>>
>>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
>>> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will get
>>>> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>>>>
>>>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>>>>
>>>> -james
>>>>
>>>>
 

[james_sg]

Just to add on to point 6. Since the entity in Cayenne can be programmatically construct, it should be possible to read OFBiz's entity files.

james_sg wrote

Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points about Cayenne:
1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated Generic Objects are implicitly saved.
6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz does that automatically.

If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.

Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.

Regards,
James

Scott Gray-2 wrote

Hi Chris,

Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses POJOs to represent data?

Thanks
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:

> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>
> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>
> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
>> like party, but just the tools.
>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>> next layer is Webtools
>> next layer is security and common
>>
>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
>> application.
>>
>>
>>

[BJ Freeman]

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on
the fly into html, from the server.

BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps
I converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.

=========================
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

james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
>
> A few points about Cayenne:
> 1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
> 2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
> 3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
> 4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
> 5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In
> Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated Generic
> Objects are implicitly saved.
> 6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated
> and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
> 7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz
> does that automatically.
>
> If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity
> engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.
>
> Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> Scott Gray-2 wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
>> hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
>> POJOs to represent data?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:
>>
>>> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>>>
>>> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
>>> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
>>> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
>>> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>>>
>>> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
>>>> like party, but just the tools.
>>>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>>>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>>>> next layer is Webtools
>>>> next layer is security and common
>>>>
>>>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
>>>> application.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>>>>> give you framework independence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>>>>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
>>>>> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
>>>>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
>>>>> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
>>>>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
>>>>> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
>>>>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
>>>>> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
>>>>> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
>>>>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
>>>>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
>>>>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
>>>>> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -james
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>