Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>]

Hi all,

I’m at the beginning stages of a long process to make ofbiz the core behind
my business. I see that there is a long way for me to go before my people or
I start using it in a meaningful way because of all the changes I will want.
That said, I can clearly see what the future will be for my business and
ofbiz.

One of the things that pushes me is the thought that my employees and I will
be able to use a single integrated application from front end website to the
double entry accounting. What I really want to know is how far people
(especially the developers) see ofbiz going? For example, would it be
possible to integrate something like Zimbra email (http://www.zimbra.com)
right into the core of ofbiz? I’m not sure about the license issues, etc but
I would love to see it. 

Am I too naïve to think that my entire business could be run from one core
application?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3532957.html#a9860645
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Scott,

If you're doing it for your own use, licensing issues shouldn't be an obstacle.

As for integrating stuff with OFBiz, in short: You can, just because it's open source!

I've integrated many stuff into OFBiz already. Right now, the Widget module we have works very 
much like Windows UIs. Lots of AJAX to get that working, though. But frameworks like Dojo and 
Livegrid are already there to help you out (currently way underused in OFBiz).

Other pluggable frameworks include email applications (like the one you mentioned), telecoms 
stuff, etc.

Long journey, it is. But you'll see frequent and incremental progress throughout, not wait for 2 
years to implement a "dream machine". Retain a few IT guys, get familiar with OFBiz over time 
(take Christopher Snow for eg, he's making good progress). Love it (OFBiz), and it'll love you back.

As mentioned in some replies to your post here, there are many businesses who add new 
functionality to their OFBiz implementation almost every month! Try getting a proprietary 
closed-source application to change on a monthly basis to suit your changing needs.

You're on the right track. I've looked at other ERP frameworks already. This is as good as it 
gets. I wouldn't name names, but I think OFBiz is still the most open framework out there; there 
are open source ERP frameworks that require you to pay substantial amounts of money and training 
costs to pick up. (Christopher Snow, I know it feels like the ML isn't giving us A LOT of help, 
but it really is the best I've seen thus far.)

I see OFBiz going a long way. It's still early now, so you do see neck-to-neck competition from 
other frameworks. And yes, all the available options have the "not-quite-finished" feel to them at 
this early stage. But the mid-term (1-2 years) will be telling, and I suspect OFBiz will pull ahead.

Jonathon

Scott A wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I’m at the beginning stages of a long process to make ofbiz the core behind
> my business. I see that there is a long way for me to go before my people or
> I start using it in a meaningful way because of all the changes I will want.
> That said, I can clearly see what the future will be for my business and
> ofbiz.
> 
> One of the things that pushes me is the thought that my employees and I will
> be able to use a single integrated application from front end website to the
> double entry accounting. What I really want to know is how far people
> (especially the developers) see ofbiz going? For example, would it be
> possible to integrate something like Zimbra email (http://www.zimbra.com)
> right into the core of ofbiz? I’m not sure about the license issues, etc but
> I would love to see it. 
> 
> Am I too naïve to think that my entire business could be run from one core
> application?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

Actually GWT does not generate HTML, it generates DOM objects.  The 
difference is perhaps being picky, but I think it is important.

Attaching GWT event handling to existing HTML is not something that
should be attempted.

David

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:25, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> David,
>
>  > I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
>
> GWT generates its own HTML code (the events, especially). GWT also
> generates the javascript codes (the event handlers). I can certainly use
> the generated javascript codes verbatim. But I'd have to somehow tweak my
> OFBiz form/screen widgets to connect them to the javascript codes.
>
> The problem is that GWT produces the HTML code for both events
> (onMouseOver, onClick, etc) and the actual UIs (aka controls, in SWT
> terminology). If, instead, GWT doesn't require the use of controls, but
> just simply requires the definition of events, it could be simpler to do.
>
> As it is now, it seems I have to do 2 things:
>
> 1. Create UI/controls with GWT,
>
> 2. Create event handlers with GWT,
>
> when I only want to do step 2.
>
> Still, you're right that I could do my own utterly stripped down controls,
> since I only want to program the event handlers and not the controls
> themselves.
>
> I'll look into this GWT soon.
>
>  > What I was reacting to was the thought that getting Javascript
>  > expertise into OfBiz might be difficult,
>
> Well, when situations create a need, we adapt. I've been doing OO
> Javascript for some time now, no problems. Yes, I did go through
> programming language study (parser, interpreter, compiler), but I think
> there are many FAQ guides on the web. Just ignore the discussions about
> scope and closure (which really is quite easy to grasp, if we just sit down
> and try).
>
>  > doing things in Java makes a lot of sense.
>
> It does, since Java is a much easier language than Javascript. I felt a
> load come off my shoulders when I moved from a PHP project to a Java
> project! I think I could've gotten stress-related health problems if I
> handled PHP for much longer.
>
>  > Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic language
>
> It is. What we can do with SWT (concurrency controls) cannot be done with
> Javascript. Or maybe I just haven't figured it out yet.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
> > As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
> > this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but you
> > can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
> > GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
> > do.
> >
> > But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for others
> > to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> > Javascript expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things
> > in Java makes a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a
> > problematic language, it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can
> > almost redefine the language as you go along - but being interpreted and
> > not type safe in the way that Java is makes it a much more difficult
> > language to use well.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
> >> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
> >> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> >> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
> >> mind - made it less desirable.
> >>
> >> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
> >> it!  Hope that helps.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Tim
> >> --
> >> Tim Ruppert
> >> HotWax Media
> >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>
> >> o:801.649.6594
> >> f:801.649.6595
> >>
> >> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> >>> Jonathon,
> >>>
> >>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> >>> would
> >>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
> >>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> >>> possible to
> >>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am
> >>> thinking
> >>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> >>> binding
> >>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> >>> originally
> >>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >>>
> >>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and
> >>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> >>> include
> >>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start
> >>> from
> >>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or
> >>> desirable)
> >>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> >>> not looked
> >>> closely enough to find out.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> >>>> Javascript
> >>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >>>> translate the
> >>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> >>>> Java is
> >>>> cool.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often
> >>>> in Ajax
> >>>> work with OFBiz.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon
> >>>>
> >>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>>>> course
> >>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>>>> programming
> >>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> >>>>> all the
> >>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
> >>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated
> >>>>> into
> >>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>>>> present in
> >>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>>>> right in
> >>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> >>>>> JSON is
> >>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is
> >>>>> the more
> >>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in
> >>>>> which
> >>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> >>>>> but there
> >>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> >>>>> perfectly
> >>>>> well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget
> >>>>>> module.
> >>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
> >>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl
> >>>>>> (s).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
> >>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>>>> various
> >>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>>>> Prev/Next
> >>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could
> >>>>>> hark
> >>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> >>>>>> (events
> >>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
> >>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>>>> acrobatics in
> >>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>>>> potential
> >>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
> >>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the
> >>>>>> "nice
> >>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case
> >>>>>> against
> >>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> >>>>>>> wait to
> >>>>>>> see the progress!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> >>>>>>>> system,
> >>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> >>>>>>>> We have
> >>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and
> >>>>>>>> you can
> >>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> >>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> >>>>>>>> products,
> >>>>>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
> >>>>>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong
> >>>>>>>> familiarity with
> >>>>>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
> >>>>>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,
> >>>>>>>> handheld
> >>>>>>>> devices, etc.
> >>>>>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
> >>>>>>>>> all of
> >>>>>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like
> >>>>>>>>> a CRM
> >>>>>>>>> portion of
> >>>>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and
> >>>>>>>>> solid email
> >>>>>>>>> client
> >>>>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>>>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
> >>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> cash. I'd
> >>>>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>>>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the
> >>>>>>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>>>> and we've
> >>>>>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for
> >>>>>>>>>>> easier
> >>>>>>>>>>> use. There
> >>>>>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my
> >>>>>>>>>>> business and
> >>>>>>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list
> >>>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>> likeminded
> >>>>>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker
> >>>>>>>>>>> pace?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of
> >>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz with
> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If
> >>>>>>>>>>> this were
> >>>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be
> >>>>>>>>>>> interested,
> >>>>>>>>>>> then we
> >>>>>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
> >>>>>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in
> >>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz
> >>>>>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked
> >>>>>>>>>> about,
> >>>>>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
> >>>>>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
> >>>>>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
> >>>>>>>>>> developing different  things.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this
> >>>>>>>>>> list or
> >>>>>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in
> >>>>>>>>>> collaborating on
> >>>>>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at
> >>>>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope
> >>>>>>>>>> (ie in
> >>>>>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks
> >>>>>>>>>> worth)
> >>>>>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you
> >>>>>>>>>> on how
> >>>>>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -David

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

 > I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".

GWT generates its own HTML code (the events, especially). GWT also generates the javascript codes 
(the event handlers). I can certainly use the generated javascript codes verbatim. But I'd have to 
somehow tweak my OFBiz form/screen widgets to connect them to the javascript codes.

The problem is that GWT produces the HTML code for both events (onMouseOver, onClick, etc) and the 
actual UIs (aka controls, in SWT terminology). If, instead, GWT doesn't require the use of 
controls, but just simply requires the definition of events, it could be simpler to do.

As it is now, it seems I have to do 2 things:

1. Create UI/controls with GWT,

2. Create event handlers with GWT,

when I only want to do step 2.

Still, you're right that I could do my own utterly stripped down controls, since I only want to 
program the event handlers and not the controls themselves.

I'll look into this GWT soon.

 > What I was reacting to was the thought that getting Javascript
 > expertise into OfBiz might be difficult,

Well, when situations create a need, we adapt. I've been doing OO Javascript for some time now, no 
problems. Yes, I did go through programming language study (parser, interpreter, compiler), but I 
think there are many FAQ guides on the web. Just ignore the discussions about scope and closure 
(which really is quite easy to grasp, if we just sit down and try).

 > doing things in Java makes a lot of sense.

It does, since Java is a much easier language than Javascript. I felt a load come off my shoulders 
when I moved from a PHP project to a Java project! I think I could've gotten stress-related health 
problems if I handled PHP for much longer.

 > Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic language

It is. What we can do with SWT (concurrency controls) cannot be done with Javascript. Or maybe I 
just haven't figured it out yet.

Jonathon

David Goodenough wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but you
> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
> do.
> 
> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for others
> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting Javascript
> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java makes
> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic language,
> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine the 
> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in the 
> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
> 
> David
> 
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
>> mind - made it less desirable.
>>
>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
>> it!  Hope that helps.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>> --
>> Tim Ruppert
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> o:801.649.6594
>> f:801.649.6595
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
>>> Jonathon,
>>>
>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
>>> would
>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
>>> possible to
>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am
>>> thinking
>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
>>> binding
>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
>>> originally
>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>>>
>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and
>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
>>> include
>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start
>>> from
>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or
>>> desirable)
>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
>>> not looked
>>> closely enough to find out.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
>>>> Javascript
>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
>>>> translate the
>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
>>>> Java is
>>>> cool.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often
>>>> in Ajax
>>>> work with OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
>>>>> course
>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
>>>>> programming
>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
>>>>> all the
>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated
>>>>> into
>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
>>>>> present in
>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
>>>>> right in
>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
>>>>> JSON is
>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is
>>>>> the more
>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in
>>>>> which
>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
>>>>> but there
>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
>>>>> perfectly
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget
>>>>>> module.
>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl
>>>>>> (s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
>>>>>> various
>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
>>>>>> Prev/Next
>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could
>>>>>> hark
>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
>>>>>> (events
>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
>>>>>> acrobatics in
>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
>>>>>> potential
>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the
>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
>>>>>>> wait to
>>>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
>>>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
>>>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and
>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
>>>>>>>> products,
>>>>>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
>>>>>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong
>>>>>>>> familiarity with
>>>>>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
>>>>>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,
>>>>>>>> handheld
>>>>>>>> devices, etc.
>>>>>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like
>>>>>>>>> a CRM
>>>>>>>>> portion of
>>>>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and
>>>>>>>>> solid email
>>>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
>>>>>>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> cash. I'd
>>>>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
>>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the
>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>> and we've
>>>>>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for
>>>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>>> use. There
>>>>>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my
>>>>>>>>>>> business and
>>>>>>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> likeminded
>>>>>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker
>>>>>>>>>>> pace?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz with
>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If
>>>>>>>>>>> this were
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be
>>>>>>>>>>> interested,
>>>>>>>>>>> then we
>>>>>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
>>>>>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in
>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz
>>>>>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked
>>>>>>>>>> about,
>>>>>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
>>>>>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
>>>>>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
>>>>>>>>>> developing different  things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this
>>>>>>>>>> list or
>>>>>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in
>>>>>>>>>> collaborating on
>>>>>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at
>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope
>>>>>>>>>> (ie in
>>>>>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks
>>>>>>>>>> worth)
>>>>>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you
>>>>>>>>>> on how
>>>>>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
> 
> 

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

Which is exactly what GWT gives you.  The UI code in the form of a minimal
HTML file and a lump of javascript are served by the we server by run on the
client.

David

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 05:40, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> David,
>
> UI code on the client in the form of dynamically downloaded javascripts,
> yes, that's good. But not UI definitions residing on the client.
>
> That's why I can't quite use SWT (Swing, UI with Java). Hefty deployment
> costs.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > Surely that is what JSON is for.  It is just a javascript based RPC
> > mechanism.  Having the UI code on the client rather than the server
> > is a good thing, its a perfectly good of the MVC models, and it means
> > that it can be very responsive to the user and feels like a normal
> > PC application.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 18:52, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >> I have a tool that creates SWT code.
> >> the problem with JAVA based UI is that the application runs on the
> >> client not the web server. So a interface has to be written to
> >> communication with the ofbiz.
> >>
> >> Where I am going with this, is the Widgets xml is converted already in
> >> ofbiz. So I would liked to see more functionality built into the
> >> widgets, where possible, instead of having redundant functionality, in
> >> some other form.
> >>
> >> For Java UI applications, I would like to see a standard interface
> >> fleshed out for communication to Ofbiz. Then each developer can use
> >> his/her favorite UI code to build on.
> >>
> >> David Goodenough sent the following on 4/24/2007 8:24 AM:
> >>> I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
> >>> definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
> >>> have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
> >>> can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
> >>> would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
> >>> when the UI definition changes.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
> >>>> renderer for it?
> >>>>
> >>>> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> Tim,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
> >>>>> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
> >>>>> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
> >>>>> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
> >>>>> do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
> >>>>> others
> >>>>> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> >>>>> Javascript
> >>>>> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
> >>>>> makes
> >>>>> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
> >>>>> language,
> >>>>> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>>>>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
> >>>>>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
> >>>>>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> >>>>>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
> >>>>>> mind - made it less desirable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
> >>>>>> it!  Hope that helps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Tim
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Tim Ruppert
> >>>>>> HotWax Media
> >>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> o:801.649.6594
> >>>>>> f:801.649.6595
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jonathon,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> >>>>>
> >>>>> could
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> >>>>>>> possible to
> >>>>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> >>>>>
> >>>>> am
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> >>>>>>> binding
> >>>>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> >>>>>>> originally
> >>>>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> >>>>>>> include
> >>>>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> start
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (or
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> desirable)
> >>>>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> >>>>>>> not looked
> >>>>>>> closely enough to find out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> >>>>>>>> Javascript
> >>>>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >>>>>>>> translate the
> >>>>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> >>>>>>>> Java is
> >>>>>>>> cool.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> >>>>>
> >>>>> often
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> in Ajax
> >>>>>>>> work with OFBiz.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>>>>>>>> programming
> >>>>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> >>>>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> >>>>>
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> integrated
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>>>>>>>> present in
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>>>>>>>> right in
> >>>>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> >>>>>>>>> JSON is
> >>>>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the more
> >>>>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> >>>>>>>>> but there
> >>>>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> >>>>>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Widget
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> module.
> >>>>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> >>>>>
> >>>>> features
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .ftl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (s).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> >>>>>
> >>>>> more)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>>>>>>>> various
> >>>>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>>>>>>>> Prev/Next
> >>>>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> could
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> hark
> >>>>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> >>>>>>>>>> (events
> >>>>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> >>>>>
> >>>>> controls in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>>>>>>>> acrobatics in
> >>>>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>>>>>>>> potential
> >>>>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "nice
> >>>>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OFBiz,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
> >>>>>
> >>>>> case
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> >>>>>>>>>>> wait to
> >>>>>>>>>>> see the progress!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> >>>>>>>>>>>> system,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> >>>>
> >>>> === message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

UI code on the client in the form of dynamically downloaded javascripts, yes, that's good. But not 
UI definitions residing on the client.

That's why I can't quite use SWT (Swing, UI with Java). Hefty deployment costs.

Jonathon

David Goodenough wrote:
> Surely that is what JSON is for.  It is just a javascript based RPC
> mechanism.  Having the UI code on the client rather than the server
> is a good thing, its a perfectly good of the MVC models, and it means
> that it can be very responsive to the user and feels like a normal
> PC application.
> 
> David
> 
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 18:52, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> I have a tool that creates SWT code.
>> the problem with JAVA based UI is that the application runs on the
>> client not the web server. So a interface has to be written to
>> communication with the ofbiz.
>>
>> Where I am going with this, is the Widgets xml is converted already in
>> ofbiz. So I would liked to see more functionality built into the
>> widgets, where possible, instead of having redundant functionality, in
>> some other form.
>>
>> For Java UI applications, I would like to see a standard interface
>> fleshed out for communication to Ofbiz. Then each developer can use
>> his/her favorite UI code to build on.
>>
>> David Goodenough sent the following on 4/24/2007 8:24 AM:
>>> I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
>>> definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
>>> have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
>>> can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
>>> would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
>>> when the UI definition changes.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
>>>> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
>>>> renderer for it?
>>>>
>>>> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
>>>>> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
>>>>> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
>>>>> you
>>>>> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
>>>>> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
>>>>> others
>>>>> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
>>>>> Javascript
>>>>> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
>>>>> makes
>>>>> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
>>>>> language,
>>>>> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
>>>>> the
>>>>> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
>>>>> the
>>>>> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
>>>>>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
>>>>>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
>>>>>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
>>>>>> mind - made it less desirable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
>>>>>> it!  Hope that helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tim Ruppert
>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o:801.649.6594
>>>>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>>>> Jonathon,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
>>>>> could
>>>>>
>>>>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
>>>>>>> possible to
>>>>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
>>>>> am
>>>>>
>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
>>>>>>> binding
>>>>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
>>>>>>> originally
>>>>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
>>>>> start
>>>>>
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
>>>>> (or
>>>>>
>>>>>>> desirable)
>>>>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
>>>>>>> not looked
>>>>>>> closely enough to find out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
>>>>>>>> Javascript
>>>>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
>>>>>>>> translate the
>>>>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
>>>>>>>> Java is
>>>>>>>> cool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
>>>>> often
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in Ajax
>>>>>>>> work with OFBiz.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
>>>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
>>>>> without
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
>>>>> integrated
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
>>>>>>>>> present in
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
>>>>>>>>> right in
>>>>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
>>>>>>>>> JSON is
>>>>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the more
>>>>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
>>>>>>>>> but there
>>>>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
>>>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
>>>>> Widget
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> module.
>>>>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
>>>>> features
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
>>>>> .ftl
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (s).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
>>>>> more)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
>>>>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
>>>>>>>>>> Prev/Next
>>>>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
>>>>> could
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hark
>>>>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
>>>>>>>>>> (events
>>>>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
>>>>> controls in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
>>>>>>>>>> acrobatics in
>>>>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
>>>>> OFBiz,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
>>>>> case
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
>>>>>>>>>>> wait to
>>>>>>>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
>>>>>>>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
>>>> === message truncated ===
> 
> 

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

Surely that is what JSON is for.  It is just a javascript based RPC
mechanism.  Having the UI code on the client rather than the server
is a good thing, its a perfectly good of the MVC models, and it means
that it can be very responsive to the user and feels like a normal
PC application.

David

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 18:52, BJ Freeman wrote:
> I have a tool that creates SWT code.
> the problem with JAVA based UI is that the application runs on the
> client not the web server. So a interface has to be written to
> communication with the ofbiz.
>
> Where I am going with this, is the Widgets xml is converted already in
> ofbiz. So I would liked to see more functionality built into the
> widgets, where possible, instead of having redundant functionality, in
> some other form.
>
> For Java UI applications, I would like to see a standard interface
> fleshed out for communication to Ofbiz. Then each developer can use
> his/her favorite UI code to build on.
>
> David Goodenough sent the following on 4/24/2007 8:24 AM:
> > I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
> > definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
> > have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
> > can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
> > would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
> > when the UI definition changes.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
> >> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
> >> renderer for it?
> >>
> >> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Tim,
> >>>
> >>> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
> >>> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
> >>> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
> >>> you
> >>> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
> >>> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
> >>> do.
> >>>
> >>> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
> >>> others
> >>> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> >>> Javascript
> >>> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
> >>> makes
> >>> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
> >>> language,
> >>> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
> >>> the
> >>> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
> >>> the
> >>> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
> >>>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
> >>>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> >>>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
> >>>> mind - made it less desirable.
> >>>>
> >>>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
> >>>> it!  Hope that helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Tim
> >>>> --
> >>>> Tim Ruppert
> >>>> HotWax Media
> >>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>>
> >>>> o:801.649.6594
> >>>> f:801.649.6595
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>> Jonathon,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> >>>
> >>> could
> >>>
> >>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> >>>>> possible to
> >>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> >>>
> >>> am
> >>>
> >>>>> thinking
> >>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> >>>>> binding
> >>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> >>>>> originally
> >>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> >>>>> include
> >>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> >>>
> >>> start
> >>>
> >>>>> from
> >>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> >>>
> >>> (or
> >>>
> >>>>> desirable)
> >>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> >>>>> not looked
> >>>>> closely enough to find out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> >>>>>> Javascript
> >>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >>>>>> translate the
> >>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> >>>>>> Java is
> >>>>>> cool.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> >>>
> >>> often
> >>>
> >>>>>> in Ajax
> >>>>>> work with OFBiz.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>>>>>> programming
> >>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> >>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> >>>
> >>> without
> >>>
> >>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> >>>
> >>> integrated
> >>>
> >>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>>>>>> present in
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>>>>>> right in
> >>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> >>>>>>> JSON is
> >>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> >>>
> >>> is
> >>>
> >>>>>>> the more
> >>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> >>>
> >>> in
> >>>
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> >>>>>>> but there
> >>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> >>>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> >>>
> >>> Widget
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> module.
> >>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> >>>
> >>> features
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> >>>
> >>> .ftl
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> (s).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> >>>
> >>> more)
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>>>>>> various
> >>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>>>>>> Prev/Next
> >>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> >>>
> >>> could
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> hark
> >>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> >>>>>>>> (events
> >>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> >>>
> >>> in
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> >>>
> >>> controls in
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>>>>>> acrobatics in
> >>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>>>>>> potential
> >>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
> >>>
> >>> in
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
> >>>
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> "nice
> >>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
> >>>
> >>> OFBiz,
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
> >>>
> >>> case
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> >>>>>>>>> wait to
> >>>>>>>>> see the progress!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> >>>>>>>>>> system,
> >>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> >>>>>>>>>> We have
> >>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> you can
> >>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> >>>>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> >>
> >> === message truncated ===

Re: [SPAM] Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

BJ,

You mean get OFBiz Widget module to generate Java UIs (SWT)? Won't be easy.

What we can do is craft a few Java-based "connector" classes to talk between Java UI and server. 
The current "form-to-server interface" is http and ajax, we should reuse that. Just a matter of 
compiling the parameters and contexts, and firing it through RequestHandler.

We could even consider that an interim measure for now, and create a JavaFormHandler that is a 
counterpart to the RequestHandler. "Counterpart" meaning it is not on same level as say 
JavaEventHandler, but 1 level higher.

The only question now: Do we urgently need to get OFBiz Widget to support Java UIs? Is that a 
popular need?

Jonathon

BJ Freeman wrote:
> I have a tool that creates SWT code.
> the problem with JAVA based UI is that the application runs on the
> client not the web server. So a interface has to be written to
> communication with the ofbiz.
> 
> Where I am going with this, is the Widgets xml is converted already in
> ofbiz. So I would liked to see more functionality built into the
> widgets, where possible, instead of having redundant functionality, in
> some other form.
> 
> For Java UI applications, I would like to see a standard interface
> fleshed out for communication to Ofbiz. Then each developer can use
> his/her favorite UI code to build on.
> 
> 
> 
> David Goodenough sent the following on 4/24/2007 8:24 AM:
>> I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
>> definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
>> have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
>> can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
>> would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
>> when the UI definition changes.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
>>> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
>>> renderer for it?
>>>
>>> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Tim,
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
>>>> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
>>>> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
>>>> you
>>>> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
>>>> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
>>>> do.
>>>>
>>>> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
>>>> others
>>>> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
>>>> Javascript
>>>> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
>>>> makes
>>>> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
>>>> language,
>>>> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
>>>> the
>>>> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
>>>> the
>>>> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
>>>>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
>>>>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
>>>>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
>>>>> mind - made it less desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
>>>>> it!  Hope that helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tim Ruppert
>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>
>>>>> o:801.649.6594
>>>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>>> Jonathon,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
>>>> could
>>>>
>>>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
>>>>>> possible to
>>>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
>>>> am
>>>>
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
>>>>>> binding
>>>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
>>>>>> originally
>>>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
>>>>>> include
>>>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
>>>> start
>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
>>>> (or
>>>>
>>>>>> desirable)
>>>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
>>>>>> not looked
>>>>>> closely enough to find out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
>>>>>>> Javascript
>>>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
>>>>>>> translate the
>>>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
>>>>>>> Java is
>>>>>>> cool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
>>>> often
>>>>
>>>>>>> in Ajax
>>>>>>> work with OFBiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
>>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
>>>> without
>>>>
>>>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
>>>> integrated
>>>>
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
>>>>>>>> present in
>>>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
>>>>>>>> right in
>>>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
>>>>>>>> JSON is
>>>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>>>>> the more
>>>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
>>>>>>>> but there
>>>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
>>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
>>>> Widget
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> module.
>>>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
>>>> features
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
>>>> .ftl
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (s).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
>>>> more)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
>>>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
>>>>>>>>> Prev/Next
>>>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
>>>> could
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hark
>>>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
>>>>>>>>> (events
>>>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
>>>> controls in
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
>>>>>>>>> acrobatics in
>>>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
>>>> OFBiz,
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
>>>> case
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
>>>>>>>>>> wait to
>>>>>>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
>>>>>>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
>>>>>>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
>>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

I have a tool that creates SWT code.
the problem with JAVA based UI is that the application runs on the
client not the web server. So a interface has to be written to
communication with the ofbiz.

Where I am going with this, is the Widgets xml is converted already in
ofbiz. So I would liked to see more functionality built into the
widgets, where possible, instead of having redundant functionality, in
some other form.

For Java UI applications, I would like to see a standard interface
fleshed out for communication to Ofbiz. Then each developer can use
his/her favorite UI code to build on.



David Goodenough sent the following on 4/24/2007 8:24 AM:
> I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
> definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
> have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
> can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
> would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
> when the UI definition changes.
> 
> David
> 
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
>> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
>> renderer for it?
>>
>> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
>>> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
>>> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
>>> you
>>> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
>>> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
>>> do.
>>>
>>> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
>>> others
>>> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
>>> Javascript
>>> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
>>> makes
>>> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
>>> language,
>>> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
>>> the
>>> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
>>> the
>>> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
>>>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
>>>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
>>>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
>>>> mind - made it less desirable.
>>>>
>>>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
>>>> it!  Hope that helps.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tim
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Ruppert
>>>> HotWax Media
>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>
>>>> o:801.649.6594
>>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>> Jonathon,
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
>>>>> would
>>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
>>> could
>>>
>>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
>>>>> possible to
>>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
>>> am
>>>
>>>>> thinking
>>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
>>>>> binding
>>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
>>>>> originally
>>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>>>>>
>>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
>>> and
>>>
>>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
>>>>> include
>>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
>>> start
>>>
>>>>> from
>>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
>>> (or
>>>
>>>>> desirable)
>>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
>>>>> not looked
>>>>> closely enough to find out.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
>>>>>> Javascript
>>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
>>>>>> translate the
>>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
>>>>>> Java is
>>>>>> cool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
>>> often
>>>
>>>>>> in Ajax
>>>>>> work with OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
>>> without
>>>
>>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
>>> integrated
>>>
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
>>>>>>> present in
>>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
>>>>>>> right in
>>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
>>>>>>> JSON is
>>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
>>> is
>>>
>>>>>>> the more
>>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
>>>>>>> but there
>>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
>>> Widget
>>>
>>>>>>>> module.
>>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
>>> features
>>>
>>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
>>> .ftl
>>>
>>>>>>>> (s).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
>>> more)
>>>
>>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
>>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
>>>>>>>> Prev/Next
>>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
>>> could
>>>
>>>>>>>> hark
>>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
>>>>>>>> (events
>>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
>>> controls in
>>>
>>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
>>>>>>>> acrobatics in
>>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
>>> OFBiz,
>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
>>> case
>>>
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
>>>>>>>>> wait to
>>>>>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
>>>>>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
>>>>>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
>>> and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
>> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
when the UI definition changes.

David

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
> renderer for it?
>
> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
> > As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
> > this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
> > you
> > can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
> > GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
> > do.
> >
> > But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
> > others
> > to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> > Javascript
> > expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
> > makes
> > a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
> > language,
> > it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
> > the
> > language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
> > the
> > way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > > David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
> > > OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
> > > having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> > > required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
> > > mind - made it less desirable.
> > >
> > > JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
> > > it!  Hope that helps.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tim
> > > --
> > > Tim Ruppert
> > > HotWax Media
> > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > >
> > > o:801.649.6594
> > > f:801.649.6595
> > >
> > > On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > > Jonathon,
> > > >
> > > > Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> > > > would
> > > > parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> >
> > could
> >
> > > > then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > > > possible to
> > > > generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> >
> > am
> >
> > > > thinking
> > > > of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> > > > binding
> > > > for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> > > > originally
> > > > part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > > >
> > > > It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
> >
> > and
> >
> > > > Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> > > > include
> > > > explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> >
> > start
> >
> > > > from
> > > > the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> >
> > (or
> >
> > > > desirable)
> > > > to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> > > > not looked
> > > > closely enough to find out.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > >> David,
> > > >>
> > > >> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> > > >> Javascript
> > > >> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> > > >> translate the
> > > >> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> > > >> Java is
> > > >> cool.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> >
> > often
> >
> > > >> in Ajax
> > > >> work with OFBiz.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jonathon
> > > >>
> > > >> David Goodenough wrote:
> > > >>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> > > >>> course
> > > >>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> > > >>> programming
> > > >>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> > > >>> all the
> > > >>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> >
> > without
> >
> > > >>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> >
> > integrated
> >
> > > >>> into
> > > >>> Eclipse quite easily.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> > > >>> present in
> > > >>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> > > >>> right in
> > > >>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> > > >>> JSON is
> > > >>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> >
> > is
> >
> > > >>> the more
> > > >>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> >
> > in
> >
> > > >>> which
> > > >>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> > > >>> but there
> > > >>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> > > >>> perfectly
> > > >>> well.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> David
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > >>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> >
> > Widget
> >
> > > >>>> module.
> > > >>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> >
> > features
> >
> > > >>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> >
> > .ftl
> >
> > > >>>> (s).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> >
> > more)
> >
> > > >>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> > > >>>> various
> > > >>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> > > >>>> Prev/Next
> > > >>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> >
> > could
> >
> > > >>>> hark
> > > >>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> > > >>>> (events
> > > >>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> >
> > in
> >
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> >
> > controls in
> >
> > > >>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> > > >>>> acrobatics in
> > > >>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> > > >>>> potential
> > > >>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
> >
> > in
> >
> > > >>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
> >
> > the
> >
> > > >>>> "nice
> > > >>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
> >
> > OFBiz,
> >
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
> >
> > case
> >
> > > >>>> against
> > > >>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jonathon
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> > > >>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> > > >>>>> wait to
> > > >>>>> see the progress!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Andrew
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> > > >>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> > > >>>>>> system,
> > > >>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> > > >>>>>> We have
> > > >>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
> >
> > and
> >
> > > >>>>>> you can
> > > >>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> > > >>>>>> to work
> > > >>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
>
> === message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

I see, thank you.
--- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:

> Simply that this is not what GWT is designed for.  It is designed to
> be
> a compile time facility, which generates a downloadable application 
> expressed in javascript.  It takes too long (say 10 seconds) to
> compile
> the java to have that as part of a web transaction.
> 
> David
> 
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 10:32, Chris Howe wrote:
> > What is preventing it from being done on the fly?
> >
> > --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > > One important thing about what I am proposing is that the xsl
> > > transform
> > > happens on the UI definition, NOT on the HTML that would have
> been
> > > displayed.  And that xsl transform is done once when the code is
> > > built,
> > > it is not done on the fly which is what I take a renderer to
> mean.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:13, Chris Howe wrote:
> > > > Not a renderer for javascript, a renderer for GWT or a renderer
> for
> > > > Echo2 or for one of the xml based engines.  It would transform
> the
> > > > screen definition into what is expected of the engine.  The one
> > >
> > > you're
> > >
> > > > most used to is the one that transforms the screen definition
> into
> > > > html.  It's very similar to what David G. is talking about with
> an
> > >
> > > xsl
> > >
> > > > transformation but using the methodology that Ofbiz uses by
> > >
> > > abstracting
> > >
> > > > it out to the renderer.
> >
> >
>
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/wid
> >
> > > >get/
> > > >
> > > > I don't have my head wrapped completely around where one part
> > >
> > > begins or
> > >
> > > > ends, but David J. or Jacopo might be able to add some insight.
>  My
> > > > reply to David G. was a question, not an interrogative
> statement.
> > > >
> > > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:
> > > > > Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm
> using is
> > > > > merely Freemarker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathon
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > > > > In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to
> > >
> > > create
> > >
> > > > > a
> > > > >
> > > > > > renderer for it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > > > > >> Tim,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with
> the
> > > > >
> > > > > HTML".
> > > > >
> > > > > >> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of
> the
> > >
> > > GWT
> > >
> > > > > code
> > > > >
> > > > > >> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to
> HTML,
> > >
> > > but
> > >
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate
> them
> > >
> > > into
> > >
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > > >> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML
> > >
> > > widgets
> > >
> > > > > can
> > > > >
> > > > > >> do.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it
> is
> > >
> > > for
> > >
> > > > > >> others
> > > > > >> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that
> > >
> > > getting
> > >
> > > > > >> Javascript
> > > > > >> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing
> things
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > > > Java
> > > > >
> > > > > >> makes
> > > > > >> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a
> > >
> > > problematic
> > >
> > > > > >> language,
> > > > > >> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost
> > >
> > > redefine
> > >
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not
> type
> > >
> > > safe
> > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language
> to
> > >
> > > use
> > >
> > > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> David
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > > > > >>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other
> > >
> > > frameworks)
> > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The
> GWT,
> > > > >
> > > > > while
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java,
> also
> > > > > >>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML -
> which
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > > > my
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> mind - made it less desirable.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of
> > > > >
> > > > > handling
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> it!  Hope that helps.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>> Tim
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Tim Ruppert
> > > > > >>> HotWax Media
> > > > > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> o:801.649.6594
> > > > > >>> f:801.649.6595
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> 
=== message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

Simply that this is not what GWT is designed for.  It is designed to be
a compile time facility, which generates a downloadable application 
expressed in javascript.  It takes too long (say 10 seconds) to compile
the java to have that as part of a web transaction.

David

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 10:32, Chris Howe wrote:
> What is preventing it from being done on the fly?
>
> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > One important thing about what I am proposing is that the xsl
> > transform
> > happens on the UI definition, NOT on the HTML that would have been
> > displayed.  And that xsl transform is done once when the code is
> > built,
> > it is not done on the fly which is what I take a renderer to mean.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:13, Chris Howe wrote:
> > > Not a renderer for javascript, a renderer for GWT or a renderer for
> > > Echo2 or for one of the xml based engines.  It would transform the
> > > screen definition into what is expected of the engine.  The one
> >
> > you're
> >
> > > most used to is the one that transforms the screen definition into
> > > html.  It's very similar to what David G. is talking about with an
> >
> > xsl
> >
> > > transformation but using the methodology that Ofbiz uses by
> >
> > abstracting
> >
> > > it out to the renderer.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/wid
>
> > >get/
> > >
> > > I don't have my head wrapped completely around where one part
> >
> > begins or
> >
> > > ends, but David J. or Jacopo might be able to add some insight.  My
> > > reply to David G. was a question, not an interrogative statement.
> > >
> > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:
> > > > Chris,
> > > >
> > > > A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm using is
> > > > merely Freemarker.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathon
> > > >
> > > > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > > > In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to
> >
> > create
> >
> > > > a
> > > >
> > > > > renderer for it?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >> Tim,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the
> > > >
> > > > HTML".
> > > >
> > > > >> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the
> >
> > GWT
> >
> > > > code
> > > >
> > > > >> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML,
> >
> > but
> >
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them
> >
> > into
> >
> > > > the
> > > >
> > > > >> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML
> >
> > widgets
> >
> > > > can
> > > >
> > > > >> do.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is
> >
> > for
> >
> > > > >> others
> > > > >> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that
> >
> > getting
> >
> > > > >> Javascript
> > > > >> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things
> >
> > in
> >
> > > > Java
> > > >
> > > > >> makes
> > > > >> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a
> >
> > problematic
> >
> > > > >> language,
> > > > >> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost
> >
> > redefine
> >
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type
> >
> > safe
> >
> > > > in
> > > >
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to
> >
> > use
> >
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > >> David
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > > > >>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other
> >
> > frameworks)
> >
> > > > in
> > > >
> > > > >>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT,
> > > >
> > > > while
> > > >
> > > > >>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> > > > >>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which
> >
> > in
> >
> > > > my
> > > >
> > > > >>> mind - made it less desirable.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of
> > > >
> > > > handling
> > > >
> > > > >>> it!  Hope that helps.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > >>> Tim
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Tim Ruppert
> > > > >>> HotWax Media
> > > > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> o:801.649.6594
> > > > >>> f:801.649.6595
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > > >>>> Jonathon,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> > > >
> > > > which
> > > >
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code
> >
> > which
> >
> > > > >> could
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > > > >>>> possible to
> > > > >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).
> >
> >  I
> >
> > > > >> am
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> thinking
> > > > >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new
> >
> > Java
> >
> > > > >>>> binding
> > > > >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was
> >
> > actually
> >
> > > > >>>> originally
> > > > >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> > > >
> > > > HTML
> > > >
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You
> >
> > can
> >
> > > > >>>> include
> > > > >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > >> start
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> from
> > > > >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be
> >
> > necessary
> >
> > > > >> (or
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> desirable)
> > > > >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I
> >
> > have
> >
> > > > >>>> not looked
> > > > >>>> closely enough to find out.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> David
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > > >>>>> David,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events)
> >
> > and
>
> === message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

What is preventing it from being done on the fly?  

--- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:

> One important thing about what I am proposing is that the xsl
> transform
> happens on the UI definition, NOT on the HTML that would have been 
> displayed.  And that xsl transform is done once when the code is
> built,
> it is not done on the fly which is what I take a renderer to mean.
> 
> David
> 
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:13, Chris Howe wrote:
> > Not a renderer for javascript, a renderer for GWT or a renderer for
> > Echo2 or for one of the xml based engines.  It would transform the
> > screen definition into what is expected of the engine.  The one
> you're
> > most used to is the one that transforms the screen definition into
> > html.  It's very similar to what David G. is talking about with an
> xsl
> > transformation but using the methodology that Ofbiz uses by
> abstracting
> > it out to the renderer.
> >
> >
>
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/wid
> >get/
> >
> > I don't have my head wrapped completely around where one part
> begins or
> > ends, but David J. or Jacopo might be able to add some insight.  My
> > reply to David G. was a question, not an interrogative statement.
> >
> > --- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm using is
> > > merely Freemarker.
> > >
> > > Jonathon
> > >
> > > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > > In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to
> create
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > > > renderer for it?
> > > >
> > > > --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> Tim,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the
> > >
> > > HTML".
> > >
> > > >> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the
> GWT
> > >
> > > code
> > >
> > > >> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML,
> but
> > > >> you
> > > >> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them
> into
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > >> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML
> widgets
> > >
> > > can
> > >
> > > >> do.
> > > >>
> > > >> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is
> for
> > > >> others
> > > >> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that
> getting
> > > >> Javascript
> > > >> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things
> in
> > >
> > > Java
> > >
> > > >> makes
> > > >> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a
> problematic
> > > >> language,
> > > >> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost
> redefine
> > > >> the
> > > >> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type
> safe
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > >> the
> > > >> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to
> use
> > >
> > > well.
> > >
> > > >> David
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > > >>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other
> frameworks)
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > >>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT,
> > >
> > > while
> > >
> > > >>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> > > >>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which
> in
> > >
> > > my
> > >
> > > >>> mind - made it less desirable.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of
> > >
> > > handling
> > >
> > > >>> it!  Hope that helps.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Tim
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Tim Ruppert
> > > >>> HotWax Media
> > > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>> o:801.649.6594
> > > >>> f:801.649.6595
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > >>>> Jonathon,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> > >
> > > which
> > >
> > > >>>> would
> > > >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code
> which
> > > >>
> > > >> could
> > > >>
> > > >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > > >>>> possible to
> > > >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).
>  I
> > > >>
> > > >> am
> > > >>
> > > >>>> thinking
> > > >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new
> Java
> > > >>>> binding
> > > >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was
> actually
> > > >>>> originally
> > > >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> > >
> > > HTML
> > >
> > > >> and
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You
> can
> > > >>>> include
> > > >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better
> to
> > > >>
> > > >> start
> > > >>
> > > >>>> from
> > > >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be
> necessary
> > > >>
> > > >> (or
> > > >>
> > > >>>> desirable)
> > > >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I
> have
> > > >>>> not looked
> > > >>>> closely enough to find out.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> David
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > >>>>> David,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events)
> and
> > >
> 
=== message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

One important thing about what I am proposing is that the xsl transform
happens on the UI definition, NOT on the HTML that would have been 
displayed.  And that xsl transform is done once when the code is built,
it is not done on the fly which is what I take a renderer to mean.

David

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:13, Chris Howe wrote:
> Not a renderer for javascript, a renderer for GWT or a renderer for
> Echo2 or for one of the xml based engines.  It would transform the
> screen definition into what is expected of the engine.  The one you're
> most used to is the one that transforms the screen definition into
> html.  It's very similar to what David G. is talking about with an xsl
> transformation but using the methodology that Ofbiz uses by abstracting
> it out to the renderer.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/wid
>get/
>
> I don't have my head wrapped completely around where one part begins or
> ends, but David J. or Jacopo might be able to add some insight.  My
> reply to David G. was a question, not an interrogative statement.
>
> --- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm using is
> > merely Freemarker.
> >
> > Jonathon
> >
> > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create
> >
> > a
> >
> > > renderer for it?
> > >
> > > --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Tim,
> > >>
> > >> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the
> >
> > HTML".
> >
> > >> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT
> >
> > code
> >
> > >> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
> > >> you
> > >> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into
> >
> > the
> >
> > >> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets
> >
> > can
> >
> > >> do.
> > >>
> > >> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
> > >> others
> > >> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> > >> Javascript
> > >> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in
> >
> > Java
> >
> > >> makes
> > >> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
> > >> language,
> > >> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
> > >> the
> > >> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe
> >
> > in
> >
> > >> the
> > >> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use
> >
> > well.
> >
> > >> David
> > >>
> > >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > >>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks)
> >
> > in
> >
> > >>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT,
> >
> > while
> >
> > >>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> > >>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in
> >
> > my
> >
> > >>> mind - made it less desirable.
> > >>>
> > >>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of
> >
> > handling
> >
> > >>> it!  Hope that helps.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Tim
> > >>> --
> > >>> Tim Ruppert
> > >>> HotWax Media
> > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > >>>
> > >>> o:801.649.6594
> > >>> f:801.649.6595
> > >>>
> > >>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> > >>>> Jonathon,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> >
> > which
> >
> > >>>> would
> > >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> > >>
> > >> could
> > >>
> > >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > >>>> possible to
> > >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> > >>
> > >> am
> > >>
> > >>>> thinking
> > >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> > >>>> binding
> > >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> > >>>> originally
> > >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> >
> > HTML
> >
> > >> and
> > >>
> > >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> > >>>> include
> > >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> > >>
> > >> start
> > >>
> > >>>> from
> > >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> > >>
> > >> (or
> > >>
> > >>>> desirable)
> > >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> > >>>> not looked
> > >>>> closely enough to find out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> David
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>>> David,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and
> >
> > the
> >
> > >>>>> Javascript
> > >>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> > >>>>> translate the
> > >>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding
> >
> > in
> >
> > >>>>> Java is
> > >>>>> cool.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> > >>
> > >> often
> > >>
> > >>>>> in Ajax
> > >>>>> work with OFBiz.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jonathon
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> > >>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> > >>>>>> course
> > >>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> > >>>>>> programming
> > >>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you
> >
> > get
> >
> > >>>>>> all the
> > >>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> > >>
> > >> without
> > >>
> > >>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> > >>
> > >> integrated
> > >>
> > >>>>>> into
> > >>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> > >>>>>> present in
> > >>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> > >>>>>> right in
> > >>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP
> >
> > but
> >
> > >>>>>> JSON is
> > >>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> > >>
> > >> is
> > >>
> > >>>>>> the more
> > >>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> > >>
> > >> in
> > >>
> > >>>>>> which
> > >>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its
> >
> > environment,
> >
> > >>>>>> but there
> > >>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will
> >
> > do
> >
> > >>>>>> perfectly
> > >>>>>> well.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> David
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> > >>
> > >> Widget
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> module.
> > >>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> > >>
> > >> features
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> > >>
> > >> .ftl
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> (s).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> > >>
> > >> more)
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> > >>>>>>> various
> > >>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> > >>>>>>> Prev/Next
> > >>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> > >>
> > >> could
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> hark
> > >>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich
> >
> > UIs
> >
> > >>>>>>> (events
> > >>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> > >>
> > >> in
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> > >>
> > >> controls in
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> > >>>>>>> acrobatics in
> > >>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> > >>>>>>> potential
> > >>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
>
> === message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Not a renderer for javascript, a renderer for GWT or a renderer for
Echo2 or for one of the xml based engines.  It would transform the
screen definition into what is expected of the engine.  The one you're
most used to is the one that transforms the screen definition into
html.  It's very similar to what David G. is talking about with an xsl
transformation but using the methodology that Ofbiz uses by abstracting
it out to the renderer.

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/

I don't have my head wrapped completely around where one part begins or
ends, but David J. or Jacopo might be able to add some insight.  My
reply to David G. was a question, not an interrogative statement.

--- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:

> Chris,
> 
> A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm using is
> merely Freemarker.
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Chris Howe wrote:
> > In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create
> a
> > renderer for it?
> > 
> > --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> >> Tim,
> >>
> >> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the
> HTML".
> >> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT
> code
> >> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
> >> you
> >> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into
> the
> >> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets
> can
> >> do.
> >>
> >> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
> >> others
> >> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> >> Javascript
> >> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in
> Java
> >> makes
> >> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
> >> language,
> >> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
> >> the 
> >> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe
> in
> >> the 
> >> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use
> well.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks)
> in
> >>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT,
> while
> >>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> >>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in
> my
> >>> mind - made it less desirable.
> >>>
> >>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of
> handling
> >>> it!  Hope that helps.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Tim
> >>> --
> >>> Tim Ruppert
> >>> HotWax Media
> >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>
> >>> o:801.649.6594
> >>> f:801.649.6595
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>> Jonathon,
> >>>>
> >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> which
> >>>> would
> >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> >> could
> >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> >>>> possible to
> >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> >> am
> >>>> thinking
> >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> >>>> binding
> >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> >>>> originally
> >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >>>>
> >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> HTML
> >> and
> >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> >>>> include
> >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> >> start
> >>>> from
> >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> >> (or
> >>>> desirable)
> >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> >>>> not looked
> >>>> closely enough to find out.
> >>>>
> >>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and
> the
> >>>>> Javascript
> >>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >>>>> translate the
> >>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding
> in
> >>>>> Java is
> >>>>> cool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> >> often
> >>>>> in Ajax
> >>>>> work with OFBiz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>>>>> course
> >>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>>>>> programming
> >>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you
> get
> >>>>>> all the
> >>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> >> without
> >>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> >> integrated
> >>>>>> into
> >>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>>>>> present in
> >>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>>>>> right in
> >>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP
> but
> >>>>>> JSON is
> >>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> >> is
> >>>>>> the more
> >>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> >> in
> >>>>>> which
> >>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its
> environment,
> >>>>>> but there
> >>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will
> do
> >>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> >> Widget
> >>>>>>> module.
> >>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> >> features
> >>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> >> .ftl
> >>>>>>> (s).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> >> more)
> >>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>>>>> various
> >>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>>>>> Prev/Next
> >>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> >> could
> >>>>>>> hark
> >>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich
> UIs
> >>>>>>> (events
> >>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> >> in
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> >> controls in
> >>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>>>>> acrobatics in
> >>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>>>>> potential
> >>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
> 
=== message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Chris,

A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm using is merely Freemarker.

Jonathon

Chris Howe wrote:
> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
> renderer for it?
> 
> --- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Tim,
>>
>> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
>> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
>> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
>> you
>> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
>> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
>> do.
>>
>> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
>> others
>> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
>> Javascript
>> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
>> makes
>> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
>> language,
>> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
>> the 
>> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
>> the 
>> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
>>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
>>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
>>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
>>> mind - made it less desirable.
>>>
>>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
>>> it!  Hope that helps.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tim
>>> --
>>> Tim Ruppert
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> o:801.649.6594
>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
>>>> Jonathon,
>>>>
>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
>>>> would
>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
>> could
>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
>>>> possible to
>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
>> am
>>>> thinking
>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
>>>> binding
>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
>>>> originally
>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>>>>
>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
>> and
>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
>>>> include
>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
>> start
>>>> from
>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
>> (or
>>>> desirable)
>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
>>>> not looked
>>>> closely enough to find out.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
>>>>> Javascript
>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
>>>>> translate the
>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
>>>>> Java is
>>>>> cool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
>> often
>>>>> in Ajax
>>>>> work with OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
>>>>>> course
>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
>>>>>> programming
>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
>>>>>> all the
>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
>> without
>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
>> integrated
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
>>>>>> present in
>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
>>>>>> right in
>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
>>>>>> JSON is
>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
>> is
>>>>>> the more
>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
>> in
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
>>>>>> but there
>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
>> Widget
>>>>>>> module.
>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
>> features
>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
>> .ftl
>>>>>>> (s).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
>> more)
>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
>>>>>>> Prev/Next
>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
>> could
>>>>>>> hark
>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
>>>>>>> (events
>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
>> in
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
>> controls in
>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
>>>>>>> acrobatics in
>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
>> in
>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
>> the
>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
>> OFBiz,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
>> case
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
>>>>>>>> wait to
>>>>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
>>>>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
>>>>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
>> and
>>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
renderer for it?

--- David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:

> Tim,
> 
> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
> this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but
> you
> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
> do.
> 
> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for
> others
> to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting
> Javascript
> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java
> makes
> a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic
> language,
> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine
> the 
> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in
> the 
> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.
> 
> David
> 
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
> > OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
> > having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> > required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
> > mind - made it less desirable.
> >
> > JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
> > it!  Hope that helps.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> >
> > On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > Jonathon,
> > >
> > > Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> > > would
> > > parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> could
> > > then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > > possible to
> > > generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> am
> > > thinking
> > > of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> > > binding
> > > for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> > > originally
> > > part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > >
> > > It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
> and
> > > Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> > > include
> > > explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> start
> > > from
> > > the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> (or
> > > desirable)
> > > to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> > > not looked
> > > closely enough to find out.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >> David,
> > >>
> > >> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> > >> Javascript
> > >> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> > >> translate the
> > >> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> > >> Java is
> > >> cool.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> often
> > >> in Ajax
> > >> work with OFBiz.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathon
> > >>
> > >> David Goodenough wrote:
> > >>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> > >>> course
> > >>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> > >>> programming
> > >>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> > >>> all the
> > >>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> without
> > >>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> integrated
> > >>> into
> > >>> Eclipse quite easily.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> > >>> present in
> > >>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> > >>> right in
> > >>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> > >>> JSON is
> > >>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> is
> > >>> the more
> > >>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> in
> > >>> which
> > >>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> > >>> but there
> > >>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> > >>> perfectly
> > >>> well.
> > >>>
> > >>> David
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> Widget
> > >>>> module.
> > >>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> features
> > >>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> .ftl
> > >>>> (s).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> more)
> > >>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> > >>>> various
> > >>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> > >>>> Prev/Next
> > >>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> could
> > >>>> hark
> > >>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> > >>>> (events
> > >>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> in
> > >>>> this
> > >>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> controls in
> > >>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> > >>>> acrobatics in
> > >>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> > >>>> potential
> > >>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
> in
> > >>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
> the
> > >>>> "nice
> > >>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
> OFBiz,
> > >>>> and
> > >>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
> case
> > >>>> against
> > >>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jonathon
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> > >>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> > >>>>> wait to
> > >>>>> see the progress!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Andrew
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> > >>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> > >>>>>> system,
> > >>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> > >>>>>> We have
> > >>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
> and
> > >>>>>> you can
> > >>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> > >>>>>> to work
> > >>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> 
=== message truncated ===

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

Tim,

I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of the GWT code
this makes no sense.  Yes the GWT controls are mapped to HTML, but you
can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate them into the
GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML widgets can
do.

But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it is for others
to decide.  What I was reacting to was the thought that getting Javascript
expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing things in Java makes
a lot of sense.  Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic language,
it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost redefine the 
language as you go along - but being interpreted and not type safe in the 
way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language to use well.

David

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in
> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while
> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also
> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my
> mind - made it less desirable.
>
> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling
> it!  Hope that helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> > Jonathon,
> >
> > Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> > would
> > parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
> > then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > possible to
> > generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am
> > thinking
> > of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> > binding
> > for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> > originally
> > part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >
> > It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and
> > Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> > include
> > explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start
> > from
> > the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or
> > desirable)
> > to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> > not looked
> > closely enough to find out.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >> David,
> >>
> >> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> >> Javascript
> >> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >> translate the
> >> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> >> Java is
> >> cool.
> >>
> >> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often
> >> in Ajax
> >> work with OFBiz.
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>> course
> >>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>> programming
> >>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> >>> all the
> >>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
> >>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated
> >>> into
> >>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>
> >>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>> present in
> >>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>> right in
> >>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> >>> JSON is
> >>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is
> >>> the more
> >>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in
> >>> which
> >>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> >>> but there
> >>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> >>> perfectly
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget
> >>>> module.
> >>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
> >>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl
> >>>> (s).
> >>>>
> >>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
> >>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>> various
> >>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>
> >>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>> Prev/Next
> >>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>
> >>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could
> >>>> hark
> >>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> >>>> (events
> >>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in
> >>>> this
> >>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
> >>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>> acrobatics in
> >>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>> potential
> >>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
> >>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the
> >>>> "nice
> >>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz,
> >>>> and
> >>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case
> >>>> against
> >>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon
> >>>>
> >>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> >>>>> wait to
> >>>>> see the progress!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> >>>>>> system,
> >>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> >>>>>> We have
> >>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and
> >>>>>> you can
> >>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> >>>>>> to work
> >>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> >>>>>> products,
> >>>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
> >>>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong
> >>>>>> familiarity with
> >>>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
> >>>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,
> >>>>>> handheld
> >>>>>> devices, etc.
> >>>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
> >>>>>>> all of
> >>>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like
> >>>>>>> a CRM
> >>>>>>> portion of
> >>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and
> >>>>>>> solid email
> >>>>>>> client
> >>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>> cash. I'd
> >>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the
> >>>>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>> and we've
> >>>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for
> >>>>>>>>> easier
> >>>>>>>>> use. There
> >>>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my
> >>>>>>>>> business and
> >>>>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list
> >>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>> likeminded
> >>>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker
> >>>>>>>>> pace?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of
> >>>>>>>>> ofbiz with
> >>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If
> >>>>>>>>> this were
> >>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be
> >>>>>>>>> interested,
> >>>>>>>>> then we
> >>>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
> >>>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in
> >>>>>>>> the OFBiz
> >>>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked
> >>>>>>>> about,
> >>>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
> >>>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
> >>>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
> >>>>>>>> developing different  things.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this
> >>>>>>>> list or
> >>>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in
> >>>>>>>> collaborating on
> >>>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at
> >>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope
> >>>>>>>> (ie in
> >>>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks
> >>>>>>>> worth)
> >>>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you
> >>>>>>>> on how
> >>>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -David

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other frameworks) in  
OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit.  The GWT, while  
having the bonus of being able to do everything in java, also  
required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML - which in my  
mind - made it less desirable.

JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of handling  
it!  Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:

> Jonathon,
>
> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which  
> would
> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be  
> possible to
> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am  
> thinking
> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java  
> binding
> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually  
> originally
> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>
> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and
> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can  
> include
> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start  
> from
> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or  
> desirable)
> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have  
> not looked
> closely enough to find out.
>
> David
>
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the  
>> Javascript
>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow  
>> translate the
>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in  
>> Java is
>> cool.
>>
>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often  
>> in Ajax
>> work with OFBiz.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of  
>>> course
>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the  
>>> programming
>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get  
>>> all the
>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated  
>>> into
>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>
>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already  
>>> present in
>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am  
>>> right in
>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but  
>>> JSON is
>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is  
>>> the more
>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in  
>>> which
>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,  
>>> but there
>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do  
>>> perfectly
>>> well.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget  
>>>> module.
>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl 
>>>> (s).
>>>>
>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down  
>>>> various
>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>
>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the  
>>>> Prev/Next
>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>
>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could  
>>>> hark
>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs  
>>>> (events
>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in  
>>>> this
>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at  
>>>> acrobatics in
>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the  
>>>> potential
>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the  
>>>> "nice
>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz,  
>>>> and
>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case  
>>>> against
>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't  
>>>>> wait to
>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM  
>>>>>> system,
>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.   
>>>>>> We have
>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and  
>>>>>> you can
>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance  
>>>>>> to work
>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source  
>>>>>> products,
>>>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
>>>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong  
>>>>>> familiarity with
>>>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
>>>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,  
>>>>>> handheld
>>>>>> devices, etc.
>>>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into  
>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like  
>>>>>>> a CRM
>>>>>>> portion of
>>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and  
>>>>>>> solid email
>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
>>>>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and  
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> cash. I'd
>>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the  
>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> and we've
>>>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for  
>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>> use. There
>>>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my  
>>>>>>>>> business and
>>>>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list  
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> likeminded
>>>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker  
>>>>>>>>> pace?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of  
>>>>>>>>> ofbiz with
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If  
>>>>>>>>> this were
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be  
>>>>>>>>> interested,
>>>>>>>>> then we
>>>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
>>>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in  
>>>>>>>> the OFBiz
>>>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked  
>>>>>>>> about,
>>>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
>>>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
>>>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
>>>>>>>> developing different  things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this  
>>>>>>>> list or
>>>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in  
>>>>>>>> collaborating on
>>>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at  
>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope  
>>>>>>>> (ie in
>>>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks  
>>>>>>>> worth)
>>>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you  
>>>>>>>> on how
>>>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David

Re: Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

Jonathon,

Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which would
parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be possible to
generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am thinking
of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java binding 
for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually originally
part of kdebindings but that is another story).

It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and 
Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can include
explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start from
the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or desirable)
to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have not looked
closely enough to find out.

David

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> David,
>
> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the Javascript
> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow translate the
> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in Java is
> cool.
>
> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often in Ajax
> work with OFBiz.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of course
> > if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the programming
> > in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get all the
> > strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
> > addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated into
> > Eclipse quite easily.
> >
> > As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already present in
> > Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am right in
> > saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but JSON is
> > lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is the more
> > native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in which
> > case you would have to write the server end in its environment, but there
> > is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do perfectly
> > well.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget module.
> >> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
> >> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl(s).
> >>
> >> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
> >> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down various
> >> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>
> >> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the Prev/Next
> >> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>
> >> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could hark
> >> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs (events
> >> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in this
> >> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
> >> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at acrobatics in
> >> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the potential
> >> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
> >> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>
> >> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the "nice
> >> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz, and
> >> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case against
> >> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't wait to
> >>> see the progress!
> >>>
> >>> Andrew
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM system,
> >>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.  We have
> >>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and you can
> >>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance to work
> >>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source products,
> >>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
> >>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity with
> >>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
> >>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones, handheld
> >>>> devices, etc.
> >>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
> >>>>
> >>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of
> >>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
> >>>>> portion of
> >>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
> >>>>> client
> >>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some
> >>>>> cash. I'd
> >>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system
> >>>>>>> and we've
> >>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier
> >>>>>>> use. There
> >>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and
> >>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where
> >>>>>>> likeminded
> >>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with
> >>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were
> >>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,
> >>>>>>> then we
> >>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
> >>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz
> >>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked about,
> >>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
> >>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
> >>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
> >>>>>> developing different  things.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or
> >>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on
> >>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at least
> >>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in
> >>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth)
> >>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how
> >>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -David

Google Widget Toolkit and OFBiz Widget module

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the Javascript (event handlers). Is 
that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow translate the HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's 
support for coding in Java is cool.

Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often in Ajax work with OFBiz.

Jonathon

David Goodenough wrote:
> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of course
> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the programming
> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get all the
> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without 
> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated into
> Eclipse quite easily.
> 
> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already present in
> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am right in
> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but JSON is
> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is the more
> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in which
> case you would have to write the server end in its environment, but there
> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do perfectly
> well.
> 
> David
> 
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget module.
>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features directly
>> into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl(s).
>>
>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down various
>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>
>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the Prev/Next
>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>
>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could hark back
>> to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs (events and
>> concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in this case, not
>> Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in javascript. Which
>> means, prepare to get wickedly good at acrobatics in javascript (obscure
>> acquired taste, really), or deal with the potential mess and meltdown.
>> Please let me know if there's any experts in javascript OO and programming
>> here.
>>
>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the "nice
>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz, and I'll
>> follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case against the body
>> I'm contributing to.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't wait to
>>> see the progress!
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM system,
>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.  We have
>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and you can
>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance to work
>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source products,
>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity with
>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones, handheld
>>>> devices, etc.
>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>>>>
>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>>>>
>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of
>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
>>>>> portion of
>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
>>>>> client
>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
>>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some
>>>>> cash. I'd
>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>>>
>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system
>>>>>>> and we've
>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier
>>>>>>> use. There
>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
>>>>>>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where
>>>>>>> likeminded
>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,
>>>>>>> then we
>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz
>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked about,
>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
>>>>>> developing different  things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or
>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on
>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at least
>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in
>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth)
>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how
>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
> 
> 

Re: looking for developers for CRM [Was: Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of course
if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the programming
in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get all the
strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without 
addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated into
Eclipse quite easily.

As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already present in
Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am right in
saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but JSON is
lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is the more
native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in which
case you would have to write the server end in its environment, but there
is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do perfectly
well.

David

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget module.
> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features directly
> into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl(s).
>
> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down various
> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>
> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the Prev/Next
> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>
> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could hark back
> to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs (events and
> concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in this case, not
> Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in javascript. Which
> means, prepare to get wickedly good at acrobatics in javascript (obscure
> acquired taste, really), or deal with the potential mess and meltdown.
> Please let me know if there's any experts in javascript OO and programming
> here.
>
> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the "nice
> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz, and I'll
> follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case against the body
> I'm contributing to.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> > This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't wait to
> > see the progress!
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM system,
> >> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.  We have
> >> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and you can
> >> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance to work
> >> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source products,
> >> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
> >> We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity with
> >> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
> >>
> >> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
> >> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones, handheld
> >> devices, etc.
> >> 3.  Analytics and reporting
> >>
> >> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
> >>
> >> Scott A wrote:
> >>> David,
> >>>
> >>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of
> >>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
> >>> portion of
> >>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
> >>> client
> >>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
> >>> ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>
> >>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some
> >>> cash. I'd
> >>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>> functionality.
> >>>
> >>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>
> >>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
> >>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system
> >>>>> and we've
> >>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier
> >>>>> use. There
> >>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
> >>>>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where
> >>>>> likeminded
> >>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with
> >>>>> something
> >>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were
> >>>>> even
> >>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,
> >>>>> then we
> >>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>
> >>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
> >>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz
> >>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked about,
> >>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
> >>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
> >>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
> >>>> developing different  things.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or
> >>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on
> >>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at least
> >>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
> >>>>
> >>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in
> >>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth)
> >>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
> >>>>
> >>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how
> >>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
> >>>>
> >>>> -David

Re: looking for developers for CRM [Was: Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Florin Jurcovici <fl...@mail.dnttm.ro>]

Hello.

> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget module.  
> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features  
> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl(s).
>
> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)  
> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down various  
> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>
> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the Prev/Next  
> hrefs) load via Ajax.

Did anyone here ever try wicket? (http://wicket.sourceforge.net/) We (the  
company I'm working for) didn't try it out until now (but we plan to do  
so), so I cannot really tell how good it is. However, here's what the wiki  
page of wicket says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicket_framework) -  
these things sound pretty smart to me:
- Transparent state management
- Wicket pages can be mocked up, previewed, and later revised using  
standard WYSIWYG HTML design tools (except when using special tags like  
<wicket:border>..</wicket:border> or <wicket:body/>).
- Dynamic content processing and form handling is all handled in Java code.
- No XML configuration files.

br,

-- 
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:33:36 +0300, Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>  
wrote:

Re: looking for developers for CRM [Was: Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Jonathon, just to clarify, I think that Andrew was kidding a bit with  
his response as we'd all like to see ALL of these contributions going  
back into a place where everyone can build on them without having to  
buy a license or contribute it back if they want to build a  
derivative app for their proprietary purposes.

Everything that Si is talking about here is to enhance the OpenTaps  
module (which by the way has a fair bit of useful functionality) and  
unless something changes in the way those contributions are being  
processed will be going back into Opentaps and not into the OFBiz trunk.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget  
> module. I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related  
> features directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do  
> HUGE .ftl(s).
>
> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)  
> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down  
> various sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>
> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the Prev/ 
> Next hrefs) load via Ajax.
>
> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could  
> hark back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs  
> (events and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript  
> involved in this case, not Java, and bad news is there's no  
> concurrency controls in javascript. Which means, prepare to get  
> wickedly good at acrobatics in javascript (obscure acquired taste,  
> really), or deal with the potential mess and meltdown. Please let  
> me know if there's any experts in javascript OO and programming here.
>
> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the  
> "nice addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or  
> OFBiz, and I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti- 
> trust case against the body I'm contributing to.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't wait  
>> to see the progress!
>> Andrew
>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM  
>>> system, we're looking for more help here at Open Source  
>>> Strategies.  We have both full-time openings and part-time paid  
>>> opportunities, and you can work from home and set your own  
>>> hours.  You'll have a chance to work with us on a combination of  
>>> client projects, our open source products, and just cool stuff  
>>> you're interested in.
>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity  
>>> with the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>>>
>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,  
>>> handheld devices, etc.
>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>>>
>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>>>
>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into  
>>>> all of the
>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM  
>>>> portion of
>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid  
>>>> email client
>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and  
>>>> technical
>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and  
>>>> some cash. I'd
>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of  
>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the  
>>>>>> system  and we've
>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for  
>>>>>> easier  use. There
>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business  
>>>>>> and that
>>>>>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list  
>>>>>> where  likeminded
>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz  
>>>>>> with  something
>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this  
>>>>>> were  even
>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be  
>>>>>> interested,  then we
>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>>
>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but  
>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in the  
>>>>> OFBiz community  will do just that. It is something we have  
>>>>> talked about, and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about  
>>>>> year 2 of the project and I  think it would be a really great  
>>>>> thing for the project, and for  everyone who participates in  
>>>>> both funding and developing different  things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list  
>>>>> or the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in  
>>>>> collaborating on this and  has enough of a business requirement  
>>>>> for it to at least help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie  
>>>>> in  terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks  
>>>>> worth) no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>>>
>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on  
>>>>> how  cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Re: looking for developers for CRM [Was: Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget module. I've incorporated some 
Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do 
HUGE .ftl(s).

Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more) purposes: non-ajax operation 
and ajax operation (pulling down various sub-sub-parts of the screen).

In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the Prev/Next hrefs) load via Ajax.

But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could hark back to those times when you 
programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs (events and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript 
involved in this case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in javascript. 
Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at acrobatics in javascript (obscure acquired taste, 
really), or deal with the potential mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts 
in javascript OO and programming here.

I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the "nice addition" Andrew's talking 
about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz, and I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any 
anti-trust case against the body I'm contributing to.

Jonathon

Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't wait to 
> see the progress!
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> 
>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM system, 
>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.  We have 
>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and you can 
>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance to work 
>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source products, 
>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
>> We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity with 
>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>>
>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones, handheld 
>> devices, etc.
>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>>
>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>>
>> Scott A wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of the
>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM 
>>> portion of
>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email 
>>> client
>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>
>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some 
>>> cash. I'd
>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of 
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system  
>>>>> and we've
>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier  
>>>>> use. There
>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
>>>>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where  
>>>>> likeminded
>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with  
>>>>> something
>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were  
>>>>> even
>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,  
>>>>> then we
>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but 
>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz 
>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked about, 
>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the 
>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the 
>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and 
>>>> developing different  things.
>>>>
>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or 
>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on 
>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at least 
>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>>
>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in  
>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth) 
>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>>
>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how  
>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 

Re: looking for developers for CRM [Was: Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Andrew Zeneski <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't wait to  
see the progress!

Andrew

On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:

> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM system,  
> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.  We  
> have both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and  
> you can work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a  
> chance to work with us on a combination of client projects, our  
> open source products, and just cool stuff you're interested in.
> We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity  
> with the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>
> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,  
> handheld devices, etc.
> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>
> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>
> Scott A wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all  
>> of the
>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM  
>> portion of
>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid  
>> email client
>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and  
>> technical
>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>
>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some  
>> cash. I'd
>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of  
>> functionality.
>>
>> Where do I go from here?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the  
>>>> system  and we've
>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for  
>>>> easier  use. There
>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and  
>>>> that
>>>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>
>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where   
>>>> likeminded
>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>>>>
>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz  
>>>> with  something
>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this  
>>>> were  even
>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be  
>>>> interested,  then we
>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but  
>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in the  
>>> OFBiz community  will do just that. It is something we have  
>>> talked about, and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about  
>>> year 2 of the project and I  think it would be a really great  
>>> thing for the project, and for  everyone who participates in both  
>>> funding and developing different  things.
>>>
>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or  
>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on  
>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at least  
>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>
>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie  
>>> in  terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks  
>>> worth) no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>
>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on  
>>> how  cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: looking for developers for CRM [Was: Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>]

If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM system, we're 
looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.  We have both 
full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and you can work 
from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance to work with us 
on a combination of client projects, our open source products, and just 
cool stuff you're interested in.   

We're especially looking for developers with strong familiarity with the 
following areas (though not necessarily just these):

1.  Front end development and Ajax
2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones, handheld 
devices, etc.
3.  Analytics and reporting

If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.

Scott A wrote:
> David,
>
> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of the
> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM portion of
> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email client
> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
> ability to put the requirements together first.
>
> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some cash. I'd
> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of functionality.
>
> Where do I go from here?
>
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>   
>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>     
>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system  
>>> and we've
>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier  
>>> use. There
>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
>>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>
>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where  
>>> likeminded
>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>>>
>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with  
>>> something
>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were  
>>> even
>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,  
>>> then we
>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>>       
>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but hopefully  
>> soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz community  
>> will do just that. It is something we have talked about, and even  
>> using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the project and I  
>> think it would be a really great thing for the project, and for  
>> everyone who participates in both funding and developing different  
>> things.
>>
>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or the  
>> dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on this and  
>> has enough of a business requirement for it to at least help to fund  
>> involvement on their side.
>>
>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in  
>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth) no  
>> one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>
>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how  
>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>
>> -David
>>  
>>
>>     
>
>   

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Walter Vaughan <wv...@steelerubber.com>]

Chris Howe wrote:

This is an entity we had Opensource Strategies write as a POC
> DataImportCustomer

Based up the work here
 > DataImportInventory
 > DataImportProduct

These are things we(*) wrote based upon the POC, but is WIP
> DataImportOrderHeader
> DataImportOrderItem

WIP but 99% complete
* DataImportBox
* DataImportPayment

Just prototyped but on the todo list for next week or two
* DataImportVendor
* DataImportVendorItem

Sometime later this summer all this will be finished, documented, and ready for 
use by the community.

(*) Actually David Shere and Eric Schwartz did 99% of the work modifying the POC.

--
Walter

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

With the exception of...
InventoryStatusGlAccountType
PartySupplementalData
SalesTeamRoleSecurity
ViewPreference
ViewPrefType
ViewPrefValueType
DataImportCustomer
DataImportOrderHeader
DataImportOrderItem
DataImportProduct
DataImportInventory

AFAIK, it's the other way around.  Entities from ofbiz are in opentaps
+ CRM distribution.  The unmodified portions of OpenSourceStrategies
distribution is Apache licensed.  However, that distinction is of
little value as the unmodified portions are obviously available from
the Apache Ofbiz distribution without question under Apache license. 



--- BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:

> which brings up a point, of why entities from finical and crmsfa are
> in
> ofbiz distribution.
> does this mean the entities that are in both ofbiz and the open
> strategies are under the apache license.
> 
> 
> David E. Jones sent the following on 4/6/2007 8:07 PM:
> > 
> > The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an
> > application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
> > 
> > Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not
> GPL
> > licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that making
> them
> > available over the internet DOES constitute distribution. This gets
> to
> > be a pain because the configurations and everything are HPL
> licensed, so
> > if you don't want to reveal your business setup, you should buy a
> license.
> > 
> > Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source
> > Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module
> at
> > least under the GPL license because of the history of the early
> > development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the
> HPL
> > license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real
> legal
> > document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
> > 
> > -David
> > 
> > 
> > On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > 
> >> Scott,
> >>
> >> That license only requires you to deliver your private source
> codes if
> >> you:
> >>
> >> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
> >>
> >> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
> >>
> >> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new
> >> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own
> computers,
> >> and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have to release
> the
> >> source codes in MyOwnApp.
> >>
> >> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Scott A wrote:
> >>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start
> and
> >>> it is in
> >>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in
> the
> >>> core of
> >>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed
> with
> >>> a totally
> >>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal
> >>> ramifications, I
> >>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a
> mistake
> >>> for me to
> >>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that
> license.
> >>> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back
> to the
> >>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only.
> I
> >>> hope you
> >>> understand.
> >>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
> >>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
> all
> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
> >>>>> portion
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid
> email
> >>>>> client
> >>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>> technical
> >>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
> some
> >>>>> cash.
> >>>>> I'd
> >>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
> >>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
> >>>>
> >>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email
> client.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like
> to hear
> >>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Walter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> > 
> 
> 

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

which brings up a point, of why entities from finical and crmsfa are in
ofbiz distribution.
does this mean the entities that are in both ofbiz and the open
strategies are under the apache license.


David E. Jones sent the following on 4/6/2007 8:07 PM:
> 
> The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an
> application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
> 
> Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not GPL
> licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that making them
> available over the internet DOES constitute distribution. This gets to
> be a pain because the configurations and everything are HPL licensed, so
> if you don't want to reveal your business setup, you should buy a license.
> 
> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source
> Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at
> least under the GPL license because of the history of the early
> development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL
> license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal
> document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> 
>> Scott,
>>
>> That license only requires you to deliver your private source codes if
>> you:
>>
>> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
>>
>> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
>>
>> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new
>> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own computers,
>> and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have to release the
>> source codes in MyOwnApp.
>>
>> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Scott A wrote:
>>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start and
>>> it is in
>>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in the
>>> core of
>>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed with
>>> a totally
>>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal
>>> ramifications, I
>>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake
>>> for me to
>>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that license.
>>> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back to the
>>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only. I
>>> hope you
>>> understand.
>>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all
>>>>> of the
>>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
>>>>> portion
>>>>> of
>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
>>>>> client
>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
>>>>> technical
>>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some
>>>>> cash.
>>>>> I'd
>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>>>>
>>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to hear
>>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Walter
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Si, I don't think that anyone wants to get into a pissing contest  
about this or anything else - especially judging by the way David  
approached it in the thread you referenced.

Personally, I see no good in getting down to the bottom of this  
particular issue at this time - just so that people can be validated  
on the mailing list.  If you want to go down that road - please let  
us know and we'll be happy to oblige.

Otherwise, let's just look at the facts related to the licenses (GPL  
vs HPL vs the Apache license), make sure that people are properly  
informed and continue to build fantastic software - whether it is  
under the OFBiz trunk or under Opentaps.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Si Chen wrote:

> This is not true.
> The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of  
> files from the old accountingext repository.  It stated that a  
> subset of the files from that repository would be released under  
> the GPL after all copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source  
> Strategies, Inc.)  It did not commit us to creating a new  
> repository or module, undertaking any further enhancement to those  
> files, or releasing future versions of those files.  Those files  
> were already released under the GPL, and we have satisfied all the  
> terms of the agreement.
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open  
>> Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials  
>> module at least under the GPL license because of the history of  
>> the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it  
>> under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is  
>> in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not  
>> so encumbered.
>>
>> -David
>>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Si,

I guess my reply off-line was not sufficient or you didn't want to  
discuss it there. That's fine, I prefer a public forum anyway.

Comments in-line:

On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Si Chen wrote:

> This is not true.
> The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of  
> files from the old accountingext repository.  It stated that a  
> subset of the files from that repository would be released under  
> the GPL after all copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source  
> Strategies, Inc.)

The text is actually fairly small and simple: "6. OSSI agrees to  
release the Exhibit B Files under the GNU General Public License  
(GPL) in addition to any other commercial software licenses under  
which it may intend to release them."

> It did not commit us to creating a new repository or module,

Correct.

> undertaking any further enhancement to those files,

Yep.

> or releasing future versions of those files.

True as well.

> Those files were already released under the GPL, and we have  
> satisfied all the terms of the agreement.

You're right the files were released under the GPL licensed. The  
original release of those is fine.

The tricky part is when the license changed, which the agreement had  
no provision for, so it would be done under the terms of the GPL.  
That code was GPL licensed and the GPL requires changes and  
modifications to be licensed under the GPL, or a "compatible"  
license. There is a lot of debate, because of this requirement, about  
which licenses are GPL-compatible (ie which ones you can use for your  
changes to GPL code in order to avoid licensing them under the GPL).

Let's say HPL was GPL-compatible (I don't know if this is the case or  
not). That would mean that any additions or changes to the original  
files could be HPL licensed, but the contents of the original files  
would still need to be GPL licensed.

That said, I really don't care so much about this issue. Unless  
something changes we (Undersun) are not going to push this issue as  
there is no benefit that we can see to doing so.

In fact, I'm not even sure what the problem or concern is, and why we  
are even having this discussion. Still, I hope this clarifies my  
thought on it for anyone reading in who might be concerned about it.

Also, in general, this has NOTHING to do with OFBiz. It is 100% about  
a code base that is not at all part of OFBiz. So, I also apologize to  
those who are reading this mailing list because they are interested  
in OFBiz itself.

-David


> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open  
>> Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials  
>> module at least under the GPL license because of the history of  
>> the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it  
>> under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is  
>> in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not  
>> so encumbered.
>>
>> -David
>>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>]

This is not true. 

The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of files 
from the old accountingext repository.  It stated that a subset of the 
files from that repository would be released under the GPL after all 
copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source Strategies, Inc.)  It 
did not commit us to creating a new repository or module, undertaking 
any further enhancement to those files, or releasing future versions of 
those files.  Those files were already released under the GPL, and we 
have satisfied all the terms of the agreement. 


David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source 
> Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at 
> least under the GPL license because of the history of the early 
> development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL 
> license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal 
> document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
>
> -David
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>]

Hi Florin

I think you got it mixed up, these are the applicable licenses:
OFBiz - Apache License
opentaps - was GPL, now HPL

Regards
Scott

On 10/04/07, Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
> Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses and
> their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer, but the
> GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions on the HPL),
> the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all and the Apache license
> is nothing like any of them.
> David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe he can
> swing in and address your particular examples directly at some point.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your
> freedom of choice.
>
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if you
> go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to essentially the
> same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a product based
> on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if
> you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on
> you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz
> - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both of
> them.
>
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution
> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are
> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom
> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to publish it
> as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make money from
> selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
>
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available in
> opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At least
> that's my understanding.
>
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy,
> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>
> br,
>
> --
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
> originally. I
> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
> whatever
> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the
> future
> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out that
> the
> license was different from what you had thought.
>
> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll build
> the
> extra functionality that I want and need.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Apache is the word here !

Jacques


> Hi Florin,
>
> OFBiz is licensed under the ASL2.0 (Apache Software License 2.0) and
> *NOT* under the GPL license.
> This is *really* important and we should not make confusion on this.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
your
> > freedom of choice.
> >
> > Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> > requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> > restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter
if
> > you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to
> > essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and
> > market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it
closed-source,
> > you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom, marketable
solution on
> > opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to publish your custom
> > solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're
> > essentially going to do it the same way for both of them.
> >
> > There is another license, which allows you to build a custom
solution
> > based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps
are
> > licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your
custom
> > solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to
> > publish it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could
make
> > money from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or
> > opentaps.
> >
> > The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
available
> > in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort,
IMO. At
> > least that's my understanding.
> >
> > Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
buggy,
> > correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
> >
> > br,
> >
> > --Florin Jurcovici
> > ------------------
> > Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>
wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
> >> originally. I
> >> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
> >> whatever
> >> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
the
> >> future
> >> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
road. It's
> >> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> >> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is
worth
> >> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out
> >> that the
> >> license was different from what you had thought.
> >>
> >> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
> >> build the
> >> extra functionality that I want and need.
> >>
> >>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Hi Florin,

OFBiz is licensed under the ASL2.0 (Apache Software License 2.0) and 
*NOT* under the GPL license.
This is *really* important and we should not make confusion on this.

Jacopo



Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your 
> freedom of choice.
> 
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only 
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any 
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if 
> you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to 
> essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and 
> market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, 
> you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on 
> opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to publish your custom 
> solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're 
> essentially going to do it the same way for both of them.
> 
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution 
> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are 
> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom 
> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to 
> publish it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make 
> money from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or 
> opentaps.
> 
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available 
> in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At 
> least that's my understanding.
> 
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy, 
> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
> 
> br,
> 
> --Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> 
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had 
>> originally. I
>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do 
>> whatever
>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the 
>> future
>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out 
>> that the
>> license was different from what you had thought.
>>
>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll 
>> build the
>> extra functionality that I want and need.
>>
>>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

That is undoubtedly correct Scott.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Scott A wrote:

>
> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go  
> for a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I  
> understand I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a  
> HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?
>
>
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>
>> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the  
>>> various
>>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I  
>>> understand from
>>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
>>> licensing issues.)
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
>>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces  
>>> parts
>>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which  
>>> uses
>>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
>>> with a module which not only provides additional financial  
>>> services but
>>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
>>
>> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
>> wrong, see
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
>> for details.
>> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is  
>> based
>> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
>> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the  
>> license
>> and give an attribution notice.
>> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions- 
> about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9920685
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: opentaps licensing model [Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Chris,

Nice read, those articles from Fabrizio Capobianco.

I'm more concerned about the diff between ASL and HPL, than GPL and HPL.

Frankly, I'm totally confused, and I often don't know what to do about balancing community benefit 
and commercial bottom lines. I do find myself simply working for the highest bidder. More often 
than not, I've benefited commercial players more than community players, which is sad.

Ultimately, I just wanna have some fun doing what I'm good at, and that's not law (or monopoly 
either).

OT here, please don't respond on ML, just musings. I wonder if GPL will ever make HPL unnecessary. 
And I wonder if the world is crumbling (what with new disruptive weather/climate) because I'm not 
helping to do something about it.

Jonathon

Chris Howe wrote:
> An interesting blog entry as to the beginnings of the HPL and what the
> main distinction is between it and the GPL. 
> 
> http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2006/08/honest-public-license.html
> 
> 
> 
> --- Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com> wrote:
> 
>> Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to
>> explain 
>> the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the 
>> benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community. 
>>
>> The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the 
>> total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of 
>> everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a
>> user, 
>> a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our
>> software.  
>> Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging
>> contributions 
>> back to the open source community and supporting open source 
>> development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early
>>
>> cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)
>>
>> If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out
>> of 
>> the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:
>>
>> (a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the
>> cost 
>> for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant
>> to 
>> do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to
>>
>> publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing
>> revenues, 
>> in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source
>>
>> software, to the benefit of everybody.
>>
>> (b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in
>> exchange 
>> for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange
>>
>> which will give you a good return on your investment in those
>> features 
>> and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll
>> be 
>> joining us in the development of opentaps.
>>
>> Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade 
>> anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years
>>
>> trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better
>>
>> OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use
>> opentaps 
>> but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself,
>> I 
>> do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  
>>
>> Si Chen
>>
>> Scott A wrote:
>>> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go
>> for a
>>> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which
>> includes
>>> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I
>> understand I can
>>> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a
>> HPL. Is
>>> this a correct assumption?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>>>>     
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>
>>>>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
>> various
>>>>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I
>> understand from
>>>>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on
>> these
>>>>> licensing issues.)
>>>>>       
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>>>>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on
>> interfaces
>>>>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces
>> parts
>>>>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which
>> uses
>>>>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing
>> ofbiz
>>>>> with a module which not only provides additional financial
>> services but
>>>>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
>>>>>       
>>>> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
>>>> wrong, see
>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
>>>> for details.
>>>> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is
>> based
>>>> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required
>> to
>>>> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the
>> license
>>>> and give an attribution notice.
>>>> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>   
> 
> 

Re: opentaps licensing model [Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

An interesting blog entry as to the beginnings of the HPL and what the
main distinction is between it and the GPL. 

http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2006/08/honest-public-license.html



--- Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com> wrote:

> Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to
> explain 
> the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the 
> benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community. 
> 
> The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the 
> total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of 
> everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a
> user, 
> a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our
> software.  
> Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging
> contributions 
> back to the open source community and supporting open source 
> development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early
> 
> cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)
> 
> If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out
> of 
> the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:
> 
> (a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the
> cost 
> for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant
> to 
> do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to
> 
> publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing
> revenues, 
> in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source
> 
> software, to the benefit of everybody.
> 
> (b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in
> exchange 
> for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange
> 
> which will give you a good return on your investment in those
> features 
> and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll
> be 
> joining us in the development of opentaps.
> 
> Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade 
> anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years
> 
> trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better
> 
> OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use
> opentaps 
> but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself,
> I 
> do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  
> 
> Si Chen
> 
> Scott A wrote:
> > Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go
> for a
> > franchise type business where I sell the entire package which
> includes
> > website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I
> understand I can
> > do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a
> HPL. Is
> > this a correct assumption?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Christian Geisert wrote:
> >   
> >> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> >>     
> >>> Hello.
> >>>
> >>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
> various
> >>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I
> understand from
> >>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on
> these
> >>> licensing issues.)
> >>>       
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>     
> >>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> >>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on
> interfaces
> >>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces
> parts
> >>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which
> uses
> >>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing
> ofbiz
> >>> with a module which not only provides additional financial
> services but
> >>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
> >>>       
> >> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
> >> wrong, see
> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
> >> for details.
> >> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is
> based
> >> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required
> to
> >> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the
> license
> >> and give an attribution notice.
> >> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Christian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >   
> 

Re: opentaps licensing model [Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>]

Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to explain 
the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the 
benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community. 

The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the 
total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of 
everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a user, 
a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our software.  
Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging contributions 
back to the open source community and supporting open source 
development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early 
cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)

If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out of 
the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:

(a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the cost 
for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant to 
do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to 
publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing revenues, 
in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source 
software, to the benefit of everybody.

(b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in exchange 
for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange 
which will give you a good return on your investment in those features 
and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll be 
joining us in the development of opentaps.

Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade 
anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years 
trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better 
OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use opentaps 
but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself, I 
do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  

Si Chen

Scott A wrote:
> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?
>
>
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
>   
>> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>>     
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
>>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
>>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
>>> licensing issues.)
>>>       
>> [..]
>>
>>     
>>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
>>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
>>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
>>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
>>> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
>>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
>>>       
>> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
>> wrong, see
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
>> for details.
>> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
>> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
>> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
>> and give an attribution notice.
>> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>]

Scott A schrieb:
> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?

IANAL and I've never heard of the HPL but the GPL doesn't forbid selling
software. However, you are required to license your modified software
under the GPL.

-- 
Christian

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for
a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand
I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a
HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?

Yes, to do so in case of Opentaps, if you don't want to expose your own
code, you have to buy a commercial lience from OpenSource Strategy.

Jacques

>
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
various
> >> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand
from
> >> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> >> licensing issues.)
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> >> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> >> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces
parts
> >> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which
uses
> >> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing
ofbiz
> >> with a module which not only provides additional financial services
but
> >> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
> >
> > I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
> > wrong, see
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
> > for details.
> > Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is
based
> > on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required
to
> > publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the
license
> > and give an attribution notice.
> > Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
> >
> > -- 
> > Christian
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9920685
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>]

Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a
franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can
do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is
this a correct assumption?




Christian Geisert wrote:
> 
> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>> Hello.
>> 
>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
>> licensing issues.)
> 
> [..]
> 
>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
>> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
> 
> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
> wrong, see
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
> for details.
> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
> and give an attribution notice.
> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
> 
> -- 
> Christian
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9920685
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>]

Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> Hello.
> 
> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> licensing issues.)

[..]

> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
wrong, see http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
for details.
Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
and give an attribution notice.
Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)

-- 
Christian

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Florin,

IANAL, but here is what I know so far

> Hello.
>
> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
various
> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand
from
> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> licensing issues.)

You got it wrong at least for ASL2 and for ASL2 vs GPL. You should at
least read the link Chris posted :

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html

> HPL/GPL: I don't see anything different in the spirit of the two
licenses.
> HPL seems to me more restrictive in that it specifies details which
the
> GPL leaves open to interpretation, but I could not find any essential
> difference between the two. Both licenses require you to provide
source
> code to any binary you may distribute, and not charge any money for
either
> the binary or the source code, if you built your binary on top of or
as an
> extension of some GPL/HPL-ed app. They do not require you to share
> whatever modifications you make to an app with the rest of the world,
they
> do however require that if you do so, it should happen without any
> licensing fees and with anybody interested in the whole world. They
both
> delimit in pretty much the same way what may and may not be considered
> derived work.

I have no comment here (did not even read all your writing) : for me
it's simple HPL is more constrained and notably more clear than GPL on
usage on web

> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
of
> an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
code
> in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz with a
> module which not only provides additional financial services but also
> changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

AFAIK there are no such constraints when commercialising with ASL2. ASL2
have only some restriction when it comes to commercialise. You can't
withdraw the Apache name.
And if you redistribute your code modified from an Apache project you
must show the ASL2 header in each files (except very simple files
without any "intelligence"). You must also keep the licences related
files (LICENCE, NOTICE) in your distribution.
>
> Essentially, I see no significant difference between the spirit of the
> Apache license and GPL. I'd happily listen to somebody trying to
explain
> this difference. Seemingly, the Apache ppl think the same way -
quoting
>  from their FAQ:
>
> Is the Apache license compatible with the GPL (GNU Public License)?

NO ! That's why we had to withdraw GPL libraries used in OFBiz before
Apache era.You can use them if you want (refer to 1st column in Chris
Howe link) but we can't distribute them within OFBiz.

> It is the unofficial position of The Apache Software Foundation
> that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL. However, the
> Free Software Foundation holds a different position, although we
> have not been able to get them to give us categorical answers to
> our queries asking for details on just what aspects they consider
> incompatible.
>
> Whether to mix software covered under these two different licenses
> must be a determination made by those attempting such a synthesis.
>
> It may be that the GPL tries to enforce open-source-ness in a more
> aggressive way than the Apache license, in that GPL forces you to
share,
> whereas Apache allows you to share (I found this opinion on the web,
but
> could not find an arugment for it in the text of the two licenses).
But I
> think a lawyer is needed to really point out the differences so that a
> non-lawyer may understand them. But both of them are pretty much the
same
> to me if you _don't_ want to share.

No, on a commercial POV with Apache you are allowed to do so, not with
GPL

> Digging deeper into the problem, I found the following on a wiki page
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_License - a search on
the
> FSF's site found it there too) - what the FSF says about Apache 2.0:
>
> This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
> The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a
> specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent
> termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think
> those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
> nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
>
> IMO, this difference is not essential for what this discussion is
about.
>
> LGPL: even this license is pretty restrictive in closing source code.
> However, you can, under this license, use an open-source library to
build
> your own commercial solution, and keep your solution closed source.
You
> still have to provide notice that you used the library, and not charge
> license fees for the library itself.
>
> What I understand that Scott's problem is, is that he expects (or at
least
> doesn't want to disregard the possibility) that he'll come to a point
> where his custom, industry-specific solution built on top of ofbiz (or
> opentaps) is so smart that he may decide to license it commercially.
IMO,
> neither building such a solution based on opentaps, licensed under the
> HPL, nor on ofbiz core, licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, will
allow
> him to do this. So I see no point in him duplicating the effort which
has
> already gone into the opentaps modules he considers rewriting. On the
> other hand, if he considers writing modules for ofbiz/opentaps, and
> providing a solution where opentaps/ofbiz are unmodified, and only
> extended by his modules, I see no point in restricting himself to one
or
> the other solution: neither HPL nor Apache 2.0 prohibit commercially
> licensing pluggable components for unmodified open-source apps.

No problem with ASL2, different for LGPL and even more for GPL. Consider
just a thing : Opentaps is build on OFBiz, you see ?

>
> Our ("our" = the company I'm working for) intention is to provide
> solutions to our customers based on ofbiz/opentaps. We don't want to
> settle on either opentaps or ofbiz, but be flexible, and choose the
one
> which is appropriate for the customers' needs, on a case-by-case
basis. So
> we are clearly interested in licensing issues which are different
between
> the two.

>From a commercial POV , for me ASL2 is less restrictive thant LGPL with
is less restrictive than GPL with in turn is less restrictive than HPL.

HTH

To everybody : Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Jacques

> br,
>
> -- 
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:12:07 +0300, Tim Ruppert
> <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses
and
> > their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer,
> > but the GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions
> > on the HPL), the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all
and
> > the Apache license is nothing like any of them.
> >
> > David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe
he
> > can swing in and address your particular examples directly at some
> > point.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> >
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
> >> your freedom of choice.
> >>
> >> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> >> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> >> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no
> >> matter if you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are
> >> bound to essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to
> >> develop and market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep
> >> it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom,
> >> marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to
> >> publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or
> >> opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both
> >> of them.
> >>
> >> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom
> >> solution based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core
> >> nor opentaps are licensed under its terms. As such, you have to
> >> either keep your custom solution closed source and use it only
> >> internally, or you have to publish it as open source. So
> >> essentially there is no way you could make money from selling
> >> licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
> >>
> >> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
> >> available in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of
> >> effort, IMO. At least that's my understanding.
> >>
> >> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
> >> buggy, correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
> >>
> >> br,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Florin Jurcovici
> >> ------------------
> >> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>
> >> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A
> >> <Sc...@anglolimited.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
> >>> originally. I
> >>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
> >>> whatever
> >>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
> >>> the future
> >>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
> >>> road. It's
> >>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> >>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software
> >>> is worth
> >>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find
> >>> out that the
> >>> license was different from what you had thought.
> >>>
> >>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
> >>> build the
> >>> extra functionality that I want and need.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Florin Jurcovici <fl...@mail.dnttm.ro>]

Hello.

To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various  
licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from  
each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these  
licensing issues.)

HPL/GPL: I don't see anything different in the spirit of the two licenses.  
HPL seems to me more restrictive in that it specifies details which the  
GPL leaves open to interpretation, but I could not find any essential  
difference between the two. Both licenses require you to provide source  
code to any binary you may distribute, and not charge any money for either  
the binary or the source code, if you built your binary on top of or as an  
extension of some GPL/HPL-ed app. They do not require you to share  
whatever modifications you make to an app with the rest of the world, they  
do however require that if you do so, it should happen without any  
licensing fees and with anybody interested in the whole world. They both  
delimit in pretty much the same way what may and may not be considered  
derived work.

Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to  
commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces  
exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts of  
an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses code  
in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz with a  
module which not only provides additional financial services but also  
changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

Essentially, I see no significant difference between the spirit of the  
Apache license and GPL. I'd happily listen to somebody trying to explain  
this difference. Seemingly, the Apache ppl think the same way - quoting  
 from their FAQ:

	Is the Apache license compatible with the GPL (GNU Public License)?

		It is the unofficial position of The Apache Software Foundation
		that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL. However, the
		Free Software Foundation holds a different position, although we
		have not been able to get them to give us categorical answers to
		our queries asking for details on just what aspects they consider
		incompatible.

		Whether to mix software covered under these two different licenses
		must be a determination made by those attempting such a synthesis.

It may be that the GPL tries to enforce open-source-ness in a more  
aggressive way than the Apache license, in that GPL forces you to share,  
whereas Apache allows you to share (I found this opinion on the web, but  
could not find an arugment for it in the text of the two licenses). But I  
think a lawyer is needed to really point out the differences so that a  
non-lawyer may understand them. But both of them are pretty much the same  
to me if you _don't_ want to share.

Digging deeper into the problem, I found the following on a wiki page  
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_License - a search on the  
FSF's site found it there too) - what the FSF says about Apache 2.0:

		This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
		The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a
		specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent
		termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think
		those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
		nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

IMO, this difference is not essential for what this discussion is about.

LGPL: even this license is pretty restrictive in closing source code.  
However, you can, under this license, use an open-source library to build  
your own commercial solution, and keep your solution closed source. You  
still have to provide notice that you used the library, and not charge  
license fees for the library itself.

What I understand that Scott's problem is, is that he expects (or at least  
doesn't want to disregard the possibility) that he'll come to a point  
where his custom, industry-specific solution built on top of ofbiz (or  
opentaps) is so smart that he may decide to license it commercially. IMO,  
neither building such a solution based on opentaps, licensed under the  
HPL, nor on ofbiz core, licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, will allow  
him to do this. So I see no point in him duplicating the effort which has  
already gone into the opentaps modules he considers rewriting. On the  
other hand, if he considers writing modules for ofbiz/opentaps, and  
providing a solution where opentaps/ofbiz are unmodified, and only  
extended by his modules, I see no point in restricting himself to one or  
the other solution: neither HPL nor Apache 2.0 prohibit commercially  
licensing pluggable components for unmodified open-source apps.

Our ("our" = the company I'm working for) intention is to provide  
solutions to our customers based on ofbiz/opentaps. We don't want to  
settle on either opentaps or ofbiz, but be flexible, and choose the one  
which is appropriate for the customers' needs, on a case-by-case basis. So  
we are clearly interested in licensing issues which are different between  
the two.

br,

-- 
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:12:07 +0300, Tim Ruppert  
<ti...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

> Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses and
> their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer,
> but the GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions
> on the HPL), the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all and
> the Apache license is nothing like any of them.
>
> David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe he
> can swing in and address your particular examples directly at some
> point.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
>> your freedom of choice.
>>
>> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
>> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
>> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no
>> matter if you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are
>> bound to essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to
>> develop and market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep
>> it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom,
>> marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to
>> publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or
>> opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both
>> of them.
>>
>> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom
>> solution based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core
>> nor opentaps are licensed under its terms. As such, you have to
>> either keep your custom solution closed source and use it only
>> internally, or you have to publish it as open source. So
>> essentially there is no way you could make money from selling
>> licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
>>
>> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
>> available in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of
>> effort, IMO. At least that's my understanding.
>>
>> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
>> buggy, correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>>
>> br,
>>
>> --
>> Florin Jurcovici
>> ------------------
>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A
>> <Sc...@anglolimited.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
>>> originally. I
>>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
>>> whatever
>>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
>>> the future
>>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
>>> road. It's
>>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
>>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software
>>> is worth
>>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find
>>> out that the
>>> license was different from what you had thought.
>>>
>>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
>>> build the
>>> extra functionality that I want and need.
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses and  
their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer,  
but the GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions  
on the HPL), the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all and  
the Apache license is nothing like any of them.

David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe he  
can swing in and address your particular examples directly at some  
point.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:

> Hello.
>
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect  
> your freedom of choice.
>
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only  
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any  
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no  
> matter if you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are  
> bound to essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to  
> develop and market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep  
> it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom,  
> marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to  
> publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or  
> opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both  
> of them.
>
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom  
> solution based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core  
> nor opentaps are licensed under its terms. As such, you have to  
> either keep your custom solution closed source and use it only  
> internally, or you have to publish it as open source. So  
> essentially there is no way you could make money from selling  
> licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
>
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality  
> available in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of  
> effort, IMO. At least that's my understanding.
>
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is  
> buggy, correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>
> br,
>
> -- 
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A  
> <Sc...@anglolimited.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had  
>> originally. I
>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do  
>> whatever
>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where  
>> the future
>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the  
>> road. It's
>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software  
>> is worth
>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find  
>> out that the
>> license was different from what you had thought.
>>
>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll  
>> build the
>> extra functionality that I want and need.
>>
>>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Thanks Chris - this is exactly what I was looking for.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Chris Howe wrote:

> Hi Florin,
>
> I think the following link shows clearly how you can use various open
> source licenses.
>
> http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html
>
> enjoy
>
> --- Florin Jurcovici <fl...@mail.dnttm.ro> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
>> your
>> freedom of choice.
>>
>> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
>> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
>> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter
>> if
>> you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to
>> essentially
>> the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a
>> product
>> based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck,
>> no
>> matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or
>> ofbiz.
>> If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source
>>
>> additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it
>> the
>> same way for both of them.
>>
>> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution
>>
>> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps
>> are
>> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your
>> custom
>> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to
>> publish
>> it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make
>> money
>>  from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or
>> opentaps.
>>
>> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
>> available in
>> opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At
>>
>> least that's my understanding.
>>
>> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
>> buggy,
>> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>>
>> br,
>>
>> -- 
>> Florin Jurcovici
>> ------------------
>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
>>> originally. I
>>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
>>
>>> whatever
>>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
>> the
>>> future
>>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
>> road. It's
>>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
>>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is
>> worth
>>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out
>> that
>>> the
>>> license was different from what you had thought.
>>>
>>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
>> build
>>> the
>>> extra functionality that I want and need.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Hi Florin,

I think the following link shows clearly how you can use various open
source licenses.

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html

enjoy

--- Florin Jurcovici <fl...@mail.dnttm.ro> wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
> your  
> freedom of choice.
> 
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only  
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any  
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter
> if  
> you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to
> essentially  
> the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a
> product  
> based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck,
> no  
> matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or
> ofbiz.  
> If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source
>  
> additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it
> the  
> same way for both of them.
> 
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution
>  
> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps
> are  
> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your
> custom  
> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to
> publish  
> it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make
> money  
>  from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or
> opentaps.
> 
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
> available in  
> opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At
>  
> least that's my understanding.
> 
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
> buggy,  
> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
> 
> br,
> 
> -- 
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> 
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had  
> > originally. I
> > didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do 
> 
> > whatever
> > I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
> the  
> > future
> > leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
> road. It's
> > especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> > customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is
> worth
> > more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out
> that  
> > the
> > license was different from what you had thought.
> >
> > I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
> build  
> > the
> > extra functionality that I want and need.
> >
> >
> 

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Florin Jurcovici <fl...@mail.dnttm.ro>]

Hello.

IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your  
freedom of choice.

Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only  
requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any  
restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if  
you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to essentially  
the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a product  
based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck, no  
matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz.  
If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source  
additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the  
same way for both of them.

There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution  
based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are  
licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom  
solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to publish  
it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make money  
 from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.

The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available in  
opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At  
least that's my understanding.

Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy,  
correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.

br,

-- 
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com> wrote:

>
> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had  
> originally. I
> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do  
> whatever
> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the  
> future
> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out that  
> the
> license was different from what you had thought.
>
> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll build  
> the
> extra functionality that I want and need.
>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>]

I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had originally. I
didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do whatever
I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the future
leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out that the
license was different from what you had thought.

I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll build the
extra functionality that I want and need. 







Anil Patel wrote:
> 
> I mean most of users of software just look at the headline that its an
> open source source software.
> And never go beyond that point reading the details or what we call fine
> prints.
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/7/07, David E. Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it's any secret or anything. It really is stated very
>> clearly on the web pages for these packages:
>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/accounting.php
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/open_source_crm.php
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/HPLv1.1.txt
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>> > David,
>> >
>> > Say I use Financials and CRMSFA, and my staff are using it over the
>> > internet.
>> >
>> > Does that mean I have to reveal any changes I make to those 2 modules?
>> >
>> > If so, that's odd. Or not so odd if OpenTaps was meant to be more
>> > commercial than free.
>> >
>> > If this is true, I'll be cutting out both modules from my own
>> > application.
>> >
>> > TIA for advice.
>> >
>> > Jonathon
>> >
>> > David E. Jones wrote:
>> >> The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an
>> >> application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
>> >> Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not
>> >> GPL licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that
>> >> making them available over the internet DOES constitute
>> >> distribution. This gets to be a pain because the configurations
>> >> and everything are HPL licensed, so if you don't want to reveal
>> >> your business setup, you should buy a license.
>> >> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open
>> >> Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials
>> >> module at least under the GPL license because of the history of
>> >> the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it
>> >> under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is
>> >> in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not
>> >> so encumbered.
>> >> -David
>> >> On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> >>> Scott,
>> >>>
>> >>> That license only requires you to deliver your private source
>> >>> codes if you:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
>> >>>
>> >>> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new
>> >>> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own
>> >>> computers, and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never
>> >>> have to release the source codes in MyOwnApp.
>> >>>
>> >>> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
>> >>>
>> >>> Jonathon
>> >>>
>> >>> Scott A wrote:
>> >>>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start
>> >>>> and it is in
>> >>>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in
>> >>>> the core of
>> >>>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed
>> >>>> with a totally
>> >>>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal
>> >>>> ramifications, I
>> >>>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a
>> >>>> mistake for me to
>> >>>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that
>> >>>> license. While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and
>> >>>> giving back to the
>> >>>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me
>> >>>> only. I hope you
>> >>>> understand.
>> >>>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>> >>>>> Scott A wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> David,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can't get into
>> >>>>>> all of the
>> >>>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a
>> >>>>>> CRM portion
>> >>>>>> of
>> >>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid
>> >>>>>> email
>> >>>>>> client
>> >>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
>> >>>>>> technical
>> >>>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
>> >>>>>> some cash.
>> >>>>>> I'd
>> >>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
>> >>>>>> functionality.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>> >>>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>> >>>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email
>> >>>>> client.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like
>> >>>>> to hear
>> >>>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Walter
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9884697
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Anil Patel <to...@gmail.com>]

I mean most of users of software just look at the headline that its an
open source source software.
And never go beyond that point reading the details or what we call fine prints.



On 4/7/07, David E. Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's any secret or anything. It really is stated very
> clearly on the web pages for these packages:
>
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/accounting.php
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/open_source_crm.php
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/HPLv1.1.txt
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > Say I use Financials and CRMSFA, and my staff are using it over the
> > internet.
> >
> > Does that mean I have to reveal any changes I make to those 2 modules?
> >
> > If so, that's odd. Or not so odd if OpenTaps was meant to be more
> > commercial than free.
> >
> > If this is true, I'll be cutting out both modules from my own
> > application.
> >
> > TIA for advice.
> >
> > Jonathon
> >
> > David E. Jones wrote:
> >> The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an
> >> application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
> >> Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not
> >> GPL licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that
> >> making them available over the internet DOES constitute
> >> distribution. This gets to be a pain because the configurations
> >> and everything are HPL licensed, so if you don't want to reveal
> >> your business setup, you should buy a license.
> >> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open
> >> Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials
> >> module at least under the GPL license because of the history of
> >> the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it
> >> under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is
> >> in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not
> >> so encumbered.
> >> -David
> >> On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>> Scott,
> >>>
> >>> That license only requires you to deliver your private source
> >>> codes if you:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
> >>>
> >>> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
> >>>
> >>> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new
> >>> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own
> >>> computers, and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never
> >>> have to release the source codes in MyOwnApp.
> >>>
> >>> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
> >>>
> >>> Jonathon
> >>>
> >>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start
> >>>> and it is in
> >>>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in
> >>>> the core of
> >>>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed
> >>>> with a totally
> >>>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal
> >>>> ramifications, I
> >>>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a
> >>>> mistake for me to
> >>>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that
> >>>> license. While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and
> >>>> giving back to the
> >>>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me
> >>>> only. I hope you
> >>>> understand.
> >>>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
> >>>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can't get into
> >>>>>> all of the
> >>>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a
> >>>>>> CRM portion
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid
> >>>>>> email
> >>>>>> client
> >>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>>> technical
> >>>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
> >>>>>> some cash.
> >>>>>> I'd
> >>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
> >>>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email
> >>>>> client.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like
> >>>>> to hear
> >>>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Walter
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

I don't think it's any secret or anything. It really is stated very  
clearly on the web pages for these packages:

http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/accounting.php
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/open_source_crm.php
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/HPLv1.1.txt

-David


On Apr 7, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David,
>
> Say I use Financials and CRMSFA, and my staff are using it over the  
> internet.
>
> Does that mean I have to reveal any changes I make to those 2 modules?
>
> If so, that's odd. Or not so odd if OpenTaps was meant to be more  
> commercial than free.
>
> If this is true, I'll be cutting out both modules from my own  
> application.
>
> TIA for advice.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an  
>> application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
>> Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not  
>> GPL licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that  
>> making them available over the internet DOES constitute  
>> distribution. This gets to be a pain because the configurations  
>> and everything are HPL licensed, so if you don't want to reveal  
>> your business setup, you should buy a license.
>> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open  
>> Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials  
>> module at least under the GPL license because of the history of  
>> the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it  
>> under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is  
>> in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not  
>> so encumbered.
>> -David
>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> That license only requires you to deliver your private source  
>>> codes if you:
>>>
>>> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
>>>
>>> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
>>>
>>> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new  
>>> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own  
>>> computers, and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never  
>>> have to release the source codes in MyOwnApp.
>>>
>>> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start  
>>>> and it is in
>>>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in  
>>>> the core of
>>>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed  
>>>> with a totally
>>>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal  
>>>> ramifications, I
>>>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a  
>>>> mistake for me to
>>>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that  
>>>> license. While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and  
>>>> giving back to the
>>>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me  
>>>> only. I hope you
>>>> understand.
>>>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into  
>>>>>> all of the
>>>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a  
>>>>>> CRM portion
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid  
>>>>>> email
>>>>>> client
>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and  
>>>>>> technical
>>>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and  
>>>>>> some cash.
>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of  
>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>>>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>>>>>
>>>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email  
>>>>> client.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like  
>>>>> to hear
>>>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Walter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Anil Patel <to...@gmail.com>]

I think lot of users of financial and CRM SFA didn't know about this.

For sure they have put lot of money into it so fees for license to use
is not a bad idea either.

Regards
Anil Patel




On 4/7/07, Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> Say I use Financials and CRMSFA, and my staff are using it over the
> internet.
>
> Does that mean I have to reveal any changes I make to those 2 modules?
>
> If so, that's odd. Or not so odd if OpenTaps was meant to be more commercial
> than free.
>
> If this is true, I'll be cutting out both modules from my own application.
>
> TIA for advice.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an
> > application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
> >
> > Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not GPL
> > licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that making them
> > available over the internet DOES constitute distribution. This gets to
> > be a pain because the configurations and everything are HPL licensed, so
> > if you don't want to reveal your business setup, you should buy a license.
> >
> > Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source
> > Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at
> > least under the GPL license because of the history of the early
> > development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL
> > license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal
> > document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >
> >> Scott,
> >>
> >> That license only requires you to deliver your private source codes if
> >> you:
> >>
> >> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
> >>
> >> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
> >>
> >> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new
> >> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own computers,
> >> and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have to release the
> >> source codes in MyOwnApp.
> >>
> >> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Scott A wrote:
> >>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start and
> >>> it is in
> >>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in the
> >>> core of
> >>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed with
> >>> a totally
> >>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal
> >>> ramifications, I
> >>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake
> >>> for me to
> >>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that license.
> >>> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back to the
> >>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only. I
> >>> hope you
> >>> understand.
> >>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
> >>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can't get into all
> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
> >>>>> portion
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
> >>>>> client
> >>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>> technical
> >>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some
> >>>>> cash.
> >>>>> I'd
> >>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
> >>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
> >>>>
> >>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to hear
> >>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Walter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

Say I use Financials and CRMSFA, and my staff are using it over the internet.

Does that mean I have to reveal any changes I make to those 2 modules?

If so, that's odd. Or not so odd if OpenTaps was meant to be more commercial than free.

If this is true, I'll be cutting out both modules from my own application.

TIA for advice.

Jonathon

David E. Jones wrote:
> 
> The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an 
> application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
> 
> Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not GPL 
> licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that making them 
> available over the internet DOES constitute distribution. This gets to 
> be a pain because the configurations and everything are HPL licensed, so 
> if you don't want to reveal your business setup, you should buy a license.
> 
> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source 
> Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at 
> least under the GPL license because of the history of the early 
> development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL 
> license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal 
> document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> 
>> Scott,
>>
>> That license only requires you to deliver your private source codes if 
>> you:
>>
>> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
>>
>> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
>>
>> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new 
>> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own computers, 
>> and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have to release the 
>> source codes in MyOwnApp.
>>
>> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Scott A wrote:
>>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start and 
>>> it is in
>>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in the 
>>> core of
>>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed with 
>>> a totally
>>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal 
>>> ramifications, I
>>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake 
>>> for me to
>>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that license. 
>>> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back to the
>>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only. I 
>>> hope you
>>> understand.
>>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all 
>>>>> of the
>>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM 
>>>>> portion
>>>>> of
>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
>>>>> client
>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and 
>>>>> technical
>>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some 
>>>>> cash.
>>>>> I'd
>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of 
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>>>>
>>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to hear
>>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Walter
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an  
application available over the internet constitutes distribution...

Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not GPL  
licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that making  
them available over the internet DOES constitute distribution. This  
gets to be a pain because the configurations and everything are HPL  
licensed, so if you don't want to reveal your business setup, you  
should buy a license.

Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source  
Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at  
least under the GPL license because of the history of the early  
development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL  
license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal  
document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.

-David


On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Scott,
>
> That license only requires you to deliver your private source codes  
> if you:
>
> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
>
> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
>
> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new  
> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own  
> computers, and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have  
> to release the source codes in MyOwnApp.
>
> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
>
> Jonathon
>
> Scott A wrote:
>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start  
>> and it is in
>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in  
>> the core of
>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed  
>> with a totally
>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal  
>> ramifications, I
>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake  
>> for me to
>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that  
>> license. While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and  
>> giving back to the
>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only.  
>> I hope you
>> understand.
>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into  
>>>> all of the
>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM  
>>>> portion
>>>> of
>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid  
>>>> email
>>>> client
>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and  
>>>> technical
>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and  
>>>> some cash.
>>>> I'd
>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of  
>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>>>
>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
>>>
>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like  
>>> to hear
>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walter
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Scott,

That license only requires you to deliver your private source codes if you:

1. Change original codes licensed under GPL

2. Distribute/sell the new package.

Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new package MyOwnApp. If you only ever 
use MyOwnApp in your own computers, and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have to 
release the source codes in MyOwnApp.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?

Jonathon

Scott A wrote:
> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start and it is in
> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in the core of
> ofbiz. 
> 
> As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed with a totally
> different license and while I don't know all of the legal ramifications, I
> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake for me to
> start developing industry specific extensions based on that license. 
> 
> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back to the
> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only. I hope you
> understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>> Scott A wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of the
>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM portion
>>> of
>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
>>> client
>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>
>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some cash.
>>> I'd
>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of functionality.
>>>
>>> Where do I go from here?
>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>>
>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
>>
>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to hear
>> what you 
>> need that I may not have already considered.
>>
>> --
>> Walter
>>
>>
> 

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Hopefully someday we'll have all of that functionality in the main  
OFBiz project. It is all pretty generic, so chances are there is  
enough interest that it will be developed and maintained as part of  
OFBiz and of course licensed to make private changes private and  
derivative works unencumbered.

Until then, the OpenSourceStrategies crmsfa module is a pretty cool  
piece of software that integrates tightly with OFBiz, and you could  
use it and if you need to extend it by adding a page or something  
just contribute the extension back to OFBiz as a new page, or keep it  
an ofbiz-based resource that depends on the OFBiz entities and  
services and doesn't use any of the stuff in OSS/opentaps crmsfa....  
If a enough people do that we'll actually have an incremental build  
path that will get us closer to having a full Sales Force Automation  
package in OFBiz.

-David


On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Scott A wrote:

>
> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start and  
> it is in
> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in  
> the core of
> ofbiz.
>
> As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed with a  
> totally
> different license and while I don't know all of the legal  
> ramifications, I
> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake  
> for me to
> start developing industry specific extensions based on that license.
>
> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back  
> to the
> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only. I  
> hope you
> understand.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>>
>> Scott A wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all  
>>> of the
>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM  
>>> portion
>>> of
>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
>>> client
>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and  
>>> technical
>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>
>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some  
>>> cash.
>>> I'd
>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of  
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> Where do I go from here?
>>
>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
>>
>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
>>
>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to  
>> hear
>> what you
>> need that I may not have already considered.
>>
>> --
>> Walter
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions- 
> about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9877099
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>]

I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start and it is in
fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in the core of
ofbiz. 

As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed with a totally
different license and while I don't know all of the legal ramifications, I
am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a mistake for me to
start developing industry specific extensions based on that license. 

While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back to the
community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only. I hope you
understand.






Walter Vaughan wrote:
> 
> Scott A wrote:
> 
>> David,
>> 
>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of the
>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM portion
>> of
>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email
>> client
>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
>> ability to put the requirements together first.
>> 
>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some cash.
>> I'd
>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of functionality.
>> 
>> Where do I go from here?
> 
> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
> 
> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.
> 
> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to hear
> what you 
> need that I may not have already considered.
> 
> --
> Walter
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9877099
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Walter Vaughan <wv...@steelerubber.com>]

Scott A wrote:

> David,
> 
> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of the
> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM portion of
> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email client
> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
> ability to put the requirements together first.
> 
> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some cash. I'd
> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of functionality.
> 
> Where do I go from here?

Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login

It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email client.

Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like to hear what you 
need that I may not have already considered.

--
Walter

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>]

David,

Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into all of the
technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM portion of
ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid email client
built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and technical
ability to put the requirements together first.

That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and some cash. I'd
be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of functionality.

Where do I go from here?





David E. Jones-2 wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system  
>> and we've
>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier  
>> use. There
>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
>> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>
>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where  
>> likeminded
>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>>
>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with  
>> something
>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were  
>> even
>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,  
>> then we
>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
> 
> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but hopefully  
> soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz community  
> will do just that. It is something we have talked about, and even  
> using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the project and I  
> think it would be a really great thing for the project, and for  
> everyone who participates in both funding and developing different  
> things.
> 
> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or the  
> dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on this and  
> has enough of a business requirement for it to at least help to fund  
> involvement on their side.
> 
> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in  
> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth) no  
> one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
> 
> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how  
> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
> 
> -David
>  
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9876362
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
> I have some help from some service providers setting up the system  
> and we've
> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier  
> use. There
> are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
> hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>
> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where  
> likeminded
> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace?
>
> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with  
> something
> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were  
> even
> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested,  
> then we
> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>
> Any suggestions?

We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but hopefully  
soon or at some point some commercial entity in the OFBiz community  
will do just that. It is something we have talked about, and even  
using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the project and I  
think it would be a really great thing for the project, and for  
everyone who participates in both funding and developing different  
things.

Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this list or the  
dev list to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on this and  
has enough of a business requirement for it to at least help to fund  
involvement on their side.

My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope (ie in  
terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks worth) no  
one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".

Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you on how  
cool it would be and start banging on it with you.

-David

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Scott A <Sc...@anglolimited.com>]

I have some help from some service providers setting up the system and we've
already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for easier use. There
are also many other options I'd like to have for my business and that
hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.

Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list where likeminded
people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker pace? 

For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of ofbiz with something
like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If this were even
feasible and there were likeminded people who would be interested, then we
could pool our resources and time, etc.

Any suggestions?







BJ Freeman wrote:
> 
> as a independent consultant, I add many features to ofbiz.
> its core is substantial.
> I have clients that are adding custom stuff almost monthly.
> Like interfacing to Shipper, suppliers directly for order processing.
> 
> as far as mail, ofbiz uses java mail to get emails.
> as of yet there is no email like UI but there is way for sending and
> receiving emails.
> You will read about communication events, that is what handles emails.
> Obiz have the ability to filter emails as they come in and redirect them
> to specific background processing, like the UPS tracking emails. The
> processing though is not part of the ofbiz core at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott A sent the following on 4/5/2007 10:27 AM:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I’m at the beginning stages of a long process to make ofbiz the core
>> behind
>> my business. I see that there is a long way for me to go before my people
>> or
>> I start using it in a meaningful way because of all the changes I will
>> want.
>> That said, I can clearly see what the future will be for my business and
>> ofbiz.
>> 
>> One of the things that pushes me is the thought that my employees and I
>> will
>> be able to use a single integrated application from front end website to
>> the
>> double entry accounting. What I really want to know is how far people
>> (especially the developers) see ofbiz going? For example, would it be
>> possible to integrate something like Zimbra email (http://www.zimbra.com)
>> right into the core of ofbiz? I’m not sure about the license issues, etc
>> but
>> I would love to see it. 
>> 
>> Am I too naïve to think that my entire business could be run from one
>> core
>> application?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance.
>> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9873331
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Christopher Snow <sn...@coralms.com>]

Scott,

I think what you are looking for is what the java portlet API (JSR  
168) tries to address.  Rather than trying to make one monolithic  
application, the portlet API lets you integrate many disparate apps.   
Applications that are portlet API compatible will run smoothly and  
seamlessly alongside other portlet apps as if they are all one app.

For some examples, take a look on google for liferay portlet  
container and integration to apps such as alfresco document  
management.    Also, follow this link for the details of pentaho  
portal integration - http://jira.pentaho.org:8080/confluence/display/ 
PentahoDoc/06.+Portal+Demo

I don't think ofbiz will run from a portlet container at the moment,  
but I for one would love to see portlet compatibility added to ofbiz!

For a nice open source portlet container, check out liferay.

Cheers,

Chris



On 5 Apr 2007, at 19:27, Scott A wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> I’m at the beginning stages of a long process to make ofbiz the  
> core behind
> my business. I see that there is a long way for me to go before my  
> people or
> I start using it in a meaningful way because of all the changes I  
> will want.
> That said, I can clearly see what the future will be for my  
> business and
> ofbiz.
>
> One of the things that pushes me is the thought that my employees  
> and I will
> be able to use a single integrated application from front end  
> website to the
> double entry accounting. What I really want to know is how far people
> (especially the developers) see ofbiz going? For example, would it be
> possible to integrate something like Zimbra email (http:// 
> www.zimbra.com)
> right into the core of ofbiz? I’m not sure about the license  
> issues, etc but
> I would love to see it.
>
> Am I too naïve to think that my entire business could be run from  
> one core
> application?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Questions-about- 
> the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3532957.html#a9860645
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

as a independent consultant, I add many features to ofbiz.
its core is substantial.
I have clients that are adding custom stuff almost monthly.
Like interfacing to Shipper, suppliers directly for order processing.

as far as mail, ofbiz uses java mail to get emails.
as of yet there is no email like UI but there is way for sending and
receiving emails.
You will read about communication events, that is what handles emails.
Obiz have the ability to filter emails as they come in and redirect them
to specific background processing, like the UPS tracking emails. The
processing though is not part of the ofbiz core at this time.



Scott A sent the following on 4/5/2007 10:27 AM:
> Hi all,
> 
> I’m at the beginning stages of a long process to make ofbiz the core behind
> my business. I see that there is a long way for me to go before my people or
> I start using it in a meaningful way because of all the changes I will want.
> That said, I can clearly see what the future will be for my business and
> ofbiz.
> 
> One of the things that pushes me is the thought that my employees and I will
> be able to use a single integrated application from front end website to the
> double entry accounting. What I really want to know is how far people
> (especially the developers) see ofbiz going? For example, would it be
> possible to integrate something like Zimbra email (http://www.zimbra.com)
> right into the core of ofbiz? I’m not sure about the license issues, etc but
> I would love to see it. 
> 
> Am I too naïve to think that my entire business could be run from one core
> application?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 

Re: Questions about the future of ofbiz

[Walter Vaughan <wv...@steelerubber.com>]

Scott A wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I’m at the beginning stages of a long process to make ofbiz the core behind
> my business. I see that there is a long way for me to go before my people or
> I start using it in a meaningful way because of all the changes I will want.

Are you talking about customer facing changes or internal operations? As far as 
back room operation changes, are you talking about a lot of little stuff or a 
lot of big stuff.

We're doing the same thing right now. One thing that has guided us so far is 
"will this change help other companies and make the project better?" ofBiz is 
designed to have a fully customized customer facing side, and fairly standard 
back office systems. You don't want to run your company updating to the latest 
version every 4 hours, but you also don't want a so customized version of 
AngloLimited ERP that it could never be updated again from the project.

List the changes you think you need. Perhaps there are better "best practices" 
to accomplish them. They may be things that developers are working on. Some 
things may be needed  & simple and really should be made into JIRA issues 
(basically a bulletin board that the ofBiz developers use to know who is working 
on what and what needs fixing) and others may be something that peaks the 
interest of someone else who might think "Hum, I never thought of that, we 
really need that." Others may be pie in the sky. But even pie in the sky is 
*good*. It pushes the community's self imposed boundaries.

The power in ofBiz is the fact that today we walk on roads paved by others, and 
as we type here others are building new roads. If we contribute in building even 
  more roads, we all benefit from the stronger infrastructure. Next year ofBiz 
will be better than it is today. In 2017 it will be even better because of 
shared experiences and talents.

> Am I too naïve to think that my entire business could be run from one core
> application?

That's kinda the whole idea of an ERP :)

Just remember you're not alone.

--
Walter