[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1127) Modularize Fineract to allow something like e.g. the Pentaho integration to be built and run separately

["Petri Tuomola (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1127?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17183080#comment-17183080 ] 

Petri Tuomola commented on FINERACT-1127:
-----------------------------------------

[~vorburger] I was thinking along the same lines: could we have the possibility of defining different reporting engines by just including a relevant JAR file in the classpath and registering some sort of adapter class that implements an agreed interface? Then you could have one JAR file that has the Pentaho adapter (implementing the agreed interface) and the Pentaho libraries distributed by Mifos, which could be registered in Fineract as a reporting engine.

Of course you could also make it a separate web service as well...

> Modularize Fineract to allow something like e.g. the Pentaho integration to be built and run separately
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FINERACT-1127
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1127
>             Project: Apache Fineract
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>            Priority: Major
>
> [~francisguchie] thanks for raising [https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1262/files] for FINERACT-1094, even though we cannot merge it due to licensing, it helps at least me to see it nicely isolated like that, e.g. for this discussion! 
> Seeing that, and subsequent FINERACT-1125, led me to wonder if an alternative future architecture approach here could be to have a 3rd-party, such as the Mifos Initiative, offer Pentaho integration for Fineract not anymore by forking Fineract and adding code to it (which is always a PITA to maintain, in the long run), but by building and releasing an entirely separate runnable binary artifact (WAR / JAR) for it... this could be very neat even from a runtime perspective - completely separate REST API, and (possibly "heavy"?) report generation?
> _One could even image breaking out running scheduler jobs separately from API serving. Ultimately, this could effectively be the start of breaking Fineract 1.x into a CN-like "microservices" deployment... but I'd envision that to, always, just be one option, a possible alternative - with the current WAR/JAR remaining as is, forever - but it would just "assemble modules" for the "monolithic deployment distribution". Anything along these ideas is further down the line, but starting with making this possible for reporting could be a pragmatic start.... let's focus on that only, in this issue._
> This is more of a still somewhat vague idea at this stage. The next step would consist of spending more time understanding the details of how Fineract's {{ReportingProcessService}} is designed... I personally don't know that much about it, but looking at PR #1162, one can kind of gather that this {{PentahoReportingProcessServiceImpl}} needs to implement {{ReportingProcessService}}? What would it take for the front-end to be able to call another service (or Fineract to HTTP redirect reports to an external service...), and then for such an external service to be able to... do exactly what, actually - what's the lowest common denominator integration touch point, here? From an only very quick glance at the code, it looks like we're basically "passing through" JDBC connection details? So...  what one would need is to be able to build an external Fineract (non-CN) service that can access the same DB? Sharing a minimal amount of {{fineract.infrastructure.core}} code, as a library...
> [~francisguchie], [~ptuomola], [~awasum], [~xurror], [~edcable] FYI.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)