You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> on 2011/04/29 22:54:59 UTC
Another Framework Vision
Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I
decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui
project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the
existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby
leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an
application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any
implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then
everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
The document can be found here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
-Adrian
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
By the way, that document is based on real use cases. For example, my
last project was a Windows service, and I kept saying to myself "I wish
I had an entity engine jar" because I needed a database-agnostic data store.
-Adrian
On 5/4/2011 11:50 AM, David E Jones wrote:
> Could you be more specific? Are you saying that you agree with every part of what Adrian proposed in his document?
>
> For a reminder, it is this document I'm referring to (and that this thread was originally about):
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>
> -David
>
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Shi Jinghai wrote:
>
>> +1 to Adrian.
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 10:46 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>>> Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on Adrian's framework ideas?
>>>
>>> -David
>>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Shi Jinghai <sh...@langhua.org>.
Honestly I just read the document.
My +1 is only because I think Adrian can be a good host to make this
framework discussion continue.
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 11:50 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
> Could you be more specific? Are you saying that you agree with every part of what Adrian proposed in his document?
>
> For a reminder, it is this document I'm referring to (and that this thread was originally about):
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>
> -David
>
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Shi Jinghai wrote:
>
> > +1 to Adrian.
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 10:46 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
> >> Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on Adrian's framework ideas?
> >>
> >> -David
> >
> >
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Could you be more specific? Are you saying that you agree with every part of what Adrian proposed in his document?
For a reminder, it is this document I'm referring to (and that this thread was originally about):
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
-David
On May 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Shi Jinghai wrote:
> +1 to Adrian.
>
> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 10:46 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>> Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on Adrian's framework ideas?
>>
>> -David
>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Shi Jinghai <sh...@langhua.org>.
+1 to Adrian.
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 10:46 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
> Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on Adrian's framework ideas?
>
> -David
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on Adrian's framework ideas?
-David
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Anil Patel" <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Jacques,
> I see that you mentioned few names and mine was in there as well, I am not feeling any bad or such. But wanted to say something.
>
> Its not that I don't have time to contribute to Ofbiz. There is different problem, There has been way too many difficult
> interaction on email lists, Also lots of those were cases where one person in the community was not ready to cooperate.
>
> As a company we have lost many hours of work and put in bad spot before customers because of bad code commits in trunk. IMO Ofbiz
> trunk gets way too many commits and not as much code review, testing, cooperative discussions.
I lost some time also, but fortunately not that much. I found that when I got a problem the community was responsive and I have
never been caught in a deadlock. Which component(s) was more a problem for you? I know you invested much in Prototype and maybe
Dojo, had the replacement by jQuery been a problem for you? Don't you miss it now?
> Finally we decided to start using 10.04 branch for all our work. It turned out good in a way. Not many other then our company
> seems to care much about it, in a sense it good. There is less code changes to keep eye on.
Anil, this is a bit untrue, though I'm not a company and I don't recommend R10.04 for my clients nor use it locally, you have
certainly noticed that I backport a lot of fixes in releases (not only R10.04 but also R9.04). I know you know this is extra work,
just for the sake of the community.
> But now that we are using 10.04, any code improvement/enhancement we make for our clients does not easily get contributed to Ofbiz
> because of additional effort required to forward port all that code and then discuss/argue with other committers.
Yes, that's why I still prefer trunk. Though I did not get much opportunities to contribute back these last times.
> Good thing though, Ofbiz 10.04 branch, did get lots of bug fixes contributions from my coworkers, and is now very stable code
> base.
This is certainly good for your company, and I can understand that, but less for OFBiz growth. Chris Snow asked one year ago if
OFBIz was dead, I don't think so. I simply believe it's now mature and different strategies emerge. Maybe someday you will need to
turn to the trunk again and then the flow of novelties from your company will begin again...
Thanks for your comment
Jacques
> Thanks and Regards
> Anil Patel
>
>
> On May 3, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>>> On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>>>>> On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important
>>>>>> word
>>>>>> here...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone "under" me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even
>>>>> Moqui is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't
>>>>> know that OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more "free market" forces are needed and to me that means
>>>>> multiple competing projects.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, this was almost a provocation, but I did not get totally your point of view as you explain below. What I meant is
>>>> some
>>>> parts could me managed by some persons. We saw that sometimes a consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, collegial decisions
>>>> does
>>>> not work in all cases. That's a fact, a lesson we learned. So I sadly believe we (the community) definitively and ultimately
>>>> need
>>>> a justice of the peace. A person who makes the decision in last resort. Someone Karl Fogel called a benevolent dictator
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/euy7qz47u3sjwjvm. That's what we missed those last times and Jacopo sort of complained about. On
>>>> the
>>>> other hand we know things are not as simple as that: there are other means which influence the decisions: blackmail, etc. This
>>>> said, and to make things clear, it's about OFBiz community, not about what you are proposing with Moqui which is more
>>>> decentralized and entrepreneurs oriented.
>>>
>>> Yes, the questions with OFBiz is what will the future look like. If OFBiz moves toward being based on Moqui, and fitting into an
>>> ecosystem of projects instead of being an all-in-one project, what will be the new scope of Apache OFBiz?
>>>
>>> Should OFBiz be an ERP meant to be used as-is? If so, what size of business and sort of industry should it target?
>>> Alternatively,
>>> should it be a system that is meant to be customized and not used as-is (which was actually my original vision for OFBiz, though
>>> I
>>> know many have different visions and goals for the project)? Could OFBiz just be a base ERP system meant to be extended in other
>>> projects, but is usable OOTB as well?
>>>
>>> This might be a good topic for a separate thread...
>>
>> Yes, for another day... I think most people use OFBiz as a template for their own system. It contains now almost all what it's
>> needed for a web application project to be based on: there are tons of good (and not as good) examples...
>>
>>>>> Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you
>>>>> wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist
>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>> working with others, if you want)?
>>>>
>>>> I have to thing about it. I really enjoyed the work we did with Sascha, last year. For the moment I just enjoy doing nothing,
>>>> but
>>>> I mean really NOTHING :D
>>>
>>> I hear you on this. One of my favorite movies is Office Space, partly because of the main character's Dream of Doing Nothing.
>>> One
>>> of his lines in response to being asked what he did over a weekend was something like "I did nothing, and it was everything I
>>> always thought it would be." Sometimes it's necessary to do nothing for a while, and have time to think and adjust priorities
>>> and
>>> recognize desires.
>>
>> Yes, it's vital actually, the harder is to not culpabilise and turn back to spend energy
>>
>>> On the other hand, it's a great feeling to work on something that excites and motivates you. This is where free markets can
>>> really
>>> allow for incredible productivity: when people are interested and excited and motivated, and feel a sense of ownership and pride
>>> in what they are working on, productivity shoots through the roof. I don't know of any human motivation that can produce similar
>>> results in productivity, and especially along with corresponding personal happiness and fulfillment.
>>
>> Motivation is the key, I totally agree with you!
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Anil Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Jacques,
I see that you mentioned few names and mine was in there as well, I am not feeling any bad or such. But wanted to say something.
Its not that I don't have time to contribute to Ofbiz. There is different problem, There has been way too many difficult interaction on email lists, Also lots of those were cases where one person in the community was not ready to cooperate.
As a company we have lost many hours of work and put in bad spot before customers because of bad code commits in trunk. IMO Ofbiz trunk gets way too many commits and not as much code review, testing, cooperative discussions.
Finally we decided to start using 10.04 branch for all our work. It turned out good in a way. Not many other then our company seems to care much about it, in a sense it good. There is less code changes to keep eye on.
But now that we are using 10.04, any code improvement/enhancement we make for our clients does not easily get contributed to Ofbiz because of additional effort required to forward port all that code and then discuss/argue with other committers.
Good thing though, Ofbiz 10.04 branch, did get lots of bug fixes contributions from my coworkers, and is now very stable code base.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
On May 3, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>> On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>>>> On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important
>>>>> word
>>>>> here...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone "under" me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even
>>>> Moqui is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't
>>>> know that OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more "free market" forces are needed and to me that means
>>>> multiple competing projects.
>>>
>>> Actually, this was almost a provocation, but I did not get totally your point of view as you explain below. What I meant is some
>>> parts could me managed by some persons. We saw that sometimes a consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, collegial decisions does
>>> not work in all cases. That's a fact, a lesson we learned. So I sadly believe we (the community) definitively and ultimately need
>>> a justice of the peace. A person who makes the decision in last resort. Someone Karl Fogel called a benevolent dictator
>>> http://markmail.org/message/euy7qz47u3sjwjvm. That's what we missed those last times and Jacopo sort of complained about. On the
>>> other hand we know things are not as simple as that: there are other means which influence the decisions: blackmail, etc. This
>>> said, and to make things clear, it's about OFBiz community, not about what you are proposing with Moqui which is more
>>> decentralized and entrepreneurs oriented.
>>
>> Yes, the questions with OFBiz is what will the future look like. If OFBiz moves toward being based on Moqui, and fitting into an
>> ecosystem of projects instead of being an all-in-one project, what will be the new scope of Apache OFBiz?
>>
>> Should OFBiz be an ERP meant to be used as-is? If so, what size of business and sort of industry should it target? Alternatively,
>> should it be a system that is meant to be customized and not used as-is (which was actually my original vision for OFBiz, though I
>> know many have different visions and goals for the project)? Could OFBiz just be a base ERP system meant to be extended in other
>> projects, but is usable OOTB as well?
>>
>> This might be a good topic for a separate thread...
>
> Yes, for another day... I think most people use OFBiz as a template for their own system. It contains now almost all what it's
> needed for a web application project to be based on: there are tons of good (and not as good) examples...
>
>>>> Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you
>>>> wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist (perhaps
>>>> working with others, if you want)?
>>>
>>> I have to thing about it. I really enjoyed the work we did with Sascha, last year. For the moment I just enjoy doing nothing, but
>>> I mean really NOTHING :D
>>
>> I hear you on this. One of my favorite movies is Office Space, partly because of the main character's Dream of Doing Nothing. One
>> of his lines in response to being asked what he did over a weekend was something like "I did nothing, and it was everything I
>> always thought it would be." Sometimes it's necessary to do nothing for a while, and have time to think and adjust priorities and
>> recognize desires.
>
> Yes, it's vital actually, the harder is to not culpabilise and turn back to spend energy
>
>> On the other hand, it's a great feeling to work on something that excites and motivates you. This is where free markets can really
>> allow for incredible productivity: when people are interested and excited and motivated, and feel a sense of ownership and pride
>> in what they are working on, productivity shoots through the roof. I don't know of any human motivation that can produce similar
>> results in productivity, and especially along with corresponding personal happiness and fulfillment.
>
> Motivation is the key, I totally agree with you!
>
> Jacques
>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
> On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>>> On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need
>>>>> to
>>>>> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important
>>>> word
>>>> here...
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone "under" me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even
>>> Moqui is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't
>>> know that OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more "free market" forces are needed and to me that means
>>> multiple competing projects.
>>
>> Actually, this was almost a provocation, but I did not get totally your point of view as you explain below. What I meant is some
>> parts could me managed by some persons. We saw that sometimes a consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, collegial decisions does
>> not work in all cases. That's a fact, a lesson we learned. So I sadly believe we (the community) definitively and ultimately need
>> a justice of the peace. A person who makes the decision in last resort. Someone Karl Fogel called a benevolent dictator
>> http://markmail.org/message/euy7qz47u3sjwjvm. That's what we missed those last times and Jacopo sort of complained about. On the
>> other hand we know things are not as simple as that: there are other means which influence the decisions: blackmail, etc. This
>> said, and to make things clear, it's about OFBiz community, not about what you are proposing with Moqui which is more
>> decentralized and entrepreneurs oriented.
>
> Yes, the questions with OFBiz is what will the future look like. If OFBiz moves toward being based on Moqui, and fitting into an
> ecosystem of projects instead of being an all-in-one project, what will be the new scope of Apache OFBiz?
>
> Should OFBiz be an ERP meant to be used as-is? If so, what size of business and sort of industry should it target? Alternatively,
> should it be a system that is meant to be customized and not used as-is (which was actually my original vision for OFBiz, though I
> know many have different visions and goals for the project)? Could OFBiz just be a base ERP system meant to be extended in other
> projects, but is usable OOTB as well?
>
> This might be a good topic for a separate thread...
Yes, for another day... I think most people use OFBiz as a template for their own system. It contains now almost all what it's
needed for a web application project to be based on: there are tons of good (and not as good) examples...
>>> Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you
>>> wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist (perhaps
>>> working with others, if you want)?
>>
>> I have to thing about it. I really enjoyed the work we did with Sascha, last year. For the moment I just enjoy doing nothing, but
>> I mean really NOTHING :D
>
> I hear you on this. One of my favorite movies is Office Space, partly because of the main character's Dream of Doing Nothing. One
> of his lines in response to being asked what he did over a weekend was something like "I did nothing, and it was everything I
> always thought it would be." Sometimes it's necessary to do nothing for a while, and have time to think and adjust priorities and
> recognize desires.
Yes, it's vital actually, the harder is to not culpabilise and turn back to spend energy
> On the other hand, it's a great feeling to work on something that excites and motivates you. This is where free markets can really
> allow for incredible productivity: when people are interested and excited and motivated, and feel a sense of ownership and pride
> in what they are working on, productivity shoots through the roof. I don't know of any human motivation that can produce similar
> results in productivity, and especially along with corresponding personal happiness and fulfillment.
Motivation is the key, I totally agree with you!
Jacques
> -David
>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>> On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need to
>>>> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
>>>
>>> Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important word
>>> here...
>>
>> I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone "under" me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even Moqui is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't know that OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more "free market" forces are needed and to me that means multiple competing projects.
>
> Actually, this was almost a provocation, but I did not get totally your point of view as you explain below. What I meant is some parts could me managed by some persons. We saw that sometimes a consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, collegial decisions does not work in all cases. That's a fact, a lesson we learned. So I sadly believe we (the community) definitively and ultimately need a justice of the peace. A person who makes the decision in last resort. Someone Karl Fogel called a benevolent dictator http://markmail.org/message/euy7qz47u3sjwjvm. That's what we missed those last times and Jacopo sort of complained about. On the other hand we know things are not as simple as that: there are other means which influence the decisions: blackmail, etc. This said, and to make things clear, it's about OFBiz community, not about what you are proposing with Moqui which is more decentralized and entrepreneurs oriented.
Yes, the questions with OFBiz is what will the future look like. If OFBiz moves toward being based on Moqui, and fitting into an ecosystem of projects instead of being an all-in-one project, what will be the new scope of Apache OFBiz?
Should OFBiz be an ERP meant to be used as-is? If so, what size of business and sort of industry should it target? Alternatively, should it be a system that is meant to be customized and not used as-is (which was actually my original vision for OFBiz, though I know many have different visions and goals for the project)? Could OFBiz just be a base ERP system meant to be extended in other projects, but is usable OOTB as well?
This might be a good topic for a separate thread...
>> Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist (perhaps working with others, if you want)?
>
> I have to thing about it. I really enjoyed the work we did with Sascha, last year. For the moment I just enjoy doing nothing, but I mean really NOTHING :D
I hear you on this. One of my favorite movies is Office Space, partly because of the main character's Dream of Doing Nothing. One of his lines in response to being asked what he did over a weekend was something like "I did nothing, and it was everything I always thought it would be." Sometimes it's necessary to do nothing for a while, and have time to think and adjust priorities and recognize desires.
On the other hand, it's a great feeling to work on something that excites and motivates you. This is where free markets can really allow for incredible productivity: when people are interested and excited and motivated, and feel a sense of ownership and pride in what they are working on, productivity shoots through the roof. I don't know of any human motivation that can produce similar results in productivity, and especially along with corresponding personal happiness and fulfillment.
-David
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <jl...@les7arts.com>.
From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
> On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need
>>> to
>>> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
>>
>> Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important word
>> here...
>
> I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone "under" me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even Moqui
> is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't know that
> OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more "free market" forces are needed and to me that means multiple
> competing projects.
Actually, this was almost a provocation, but I did not get totally your point of view as you explain below. What I meant is some
parts could me managed by some persons. We saw that sometimes a consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, collegial decisions does
not work in all cases. That's a fact, a lesson we learned. So I sadly believe we (the community) definitively and ultimately need a
justice of the peace. A person who makes the decision in last resort. Someone Karl Fogel called a benevolent dictator
http://markmail.org/message/euy7qz47u3sjwjvm. That's what we missed those last times and Jacopo sort of complained about. On the
other hand we know things are not as simple as that: there are other means which influence the decisions: blackmail, etc. This said,
and to make things clear, it's about OFBiz community, not about what you are proposing with Moqui which is more decentralized and
entrepreneurs oriented.
> The lack of desire to work on things that you mentioned relates to this. If you had your own vision and efforts for a certain part
> of the OFBiz ecosystem, you could push that along and feel satisfied and enjoy working on it. If it was in a separate project you
> would be able to try out new ideas and prove or disprove them without so much of a peanut gallery, and without having to vote or
> come to a consensus (or try to get a lazy consensus by committing quietly).
Sure, that's a good point, who would not agree? I wish I will have enought of time to seriously commit it in such a project.
> It is now my opinion that various separate projects would produce a better community (considering the composite community of all
> of the projects), happier contributors, and better software.
I like the idea too. OFBiz is an ERP and it's maybe the reason we ran into these issues: centralization. I know what I'm talking
about: I live in France, and there are few countries more centralized (since Louis XIV and Colbert), maybe North Korea or Cuba :o)
Though things are slowly changing here, for 40 years now... Old country...
> Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you
> wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist (perhaps
> working with others, if you want)?
I have to thing about it. I really enjoyed the work we did with Sascha, last year. For the moment I just enjoy doing nothing, but I
mean really NOTHING :D
Jacques
> -David
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> First I appreciate you took the time to put your thoughts on the table. I'm not sure an answer was waited, but here we go.
>
> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>> Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't review and push back hard enough on contributions. This
>> results in a higher than desirable rate of problematic contributions making it into the project, but certainly results in a more
>> personable and agreeable human interaction.
>
> Of course, as I committed far more patches than every one else, I understand you choose me to explain your position. I did that not
> much because I enjoy personable and agreeable human interaction (which is true), but because I saw that most of contributions were
> neglicted. In some case, maybe there were good reasons. But I'm not even sure of that, because there were any feedbacks in some Jira
> issue which were very valuable and well done, especially in the deeper framework parts. I believe that if a contributor makes the
> effort to upload a patch and explain it, it's worth to at least look at it an give an opinion. I also understand that if you have
> not enough time to do it well, then it's better to wait or do nothing. I was able to do that sometimes... Finally I must say that
> some patches I committed were very valuable, some less, some should even not have been committed (or not in the state they were). I
> can agree with that.
First Jacques, thank you for your significant efforts in getting patches committed. I agree this is an important part of the project, and for a community-driven model it is a vital part of how things happen.
Your assessment of your actions sounds pretty spot on, and it's good to hear you recognize both the good and bad of your efforts. As you mentioned elsewhere in your message, I think the answer is yes... some contributions should absolutely be neglected.
>> I used to think it was easier to get someone else to do things than to do things myself. For complicated things, I don't think so
>> any more. It's easier, more peaceful, more satisfying, and even more rewarding to just do it myself. If others want to get
>> involved, they need to demonstrate a high level of competence and significant added value, otherwise they are wasting both my time
>> and theirs (ie they should go do something they are good at and stop trying to do something they are not good at; or if it is just
>> a problem of experience they should go acquire that experience (perhaps in an open source project of their own, or at least
>> something that requires less expertise) and then contribute instead of acquiring that experience as they contribute).
>
> This is certainly true (for complicated things). And was actually how you handled it before the Apache era. I understand it's hard
> to do it another way, maybe we should have keep the same way it was done before the Apache era. When it's only small changes (some
> very important) it's possible to follow the flow, when a lot of changes are committed a the same time it's above human capabilities.
>From the very beginning my goal was to grow a community around OFBiz and not do everything myself. There were more committers added to the project in the pre-ASF era than in the post-ASF era, and in fact most of the current committers and nearly all of the current PMC were committers on OFBiz before the project moved into the ASF.
Very early on there were certainly less committers, but that was just because I wasn't as successful at recruiting at the time... partly because the project took a little while to build and until it got to a certain point not so many people were interested in seriously getting involved.
It is true that as a percentage of commits in the overall pre-ASF era was largely due to Andrew and me, and after largely from others. However, I think that is more of a community maturity factor and not due to the move to the ASF. In the last year before the ASF move much of this shift had already occurred, which actually made things a bit harder because there were contributions to OFBiz from SO many people and we had to get CLAs from each person (or delete or redo their code).
>> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need to
>> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
>
> Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important word
> here...
I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone "under" me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even Moqui is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't know that OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more "free market" forces are needed and to me that means multiple competing projects.
The lack of desire to work on things that you mentioned relates to this. If you had your own vision and efforts for a certain part of the OFBiz ecosystem, you could push that along and feel satisfied and enjoy working on it. If it was in a separate project you would be able to try out new ideas and prove or disprove them without so much of a peanut gallery, and without having to vote or come to a consensus (or try to get a lazy consensus by committing quietly).
It is now my opinion that various separate projects would produce a better community (considering the composite community of all of the projects), happier contributors, and better software.
Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist (perhaps working with others, if you want)?
-David
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Short but accurate, as ever...
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> On May 3, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> ... Though I still believe it's good to get new ideas and especially fixing patches, since you, and now Scott, stopped to review
>> things,
>> you have certainly noticed that I commit less. To name a few, for a while now, Andrew, Anil , Jacopo, and Vikas stopped to
>> interact
>> as much with the community as they use to. Adam comes from time to time and is always surprising, I hope he will continue. I feel
>> that it's not because they have less interest in it, but because they have less time than before to do it. ...
>
> I can confirm that my limited interaction is due to limited time and not to a reaction to issues I see in the community; I still
> have a strong interest in OFBiz and it also mostly represents the 100% of my work. However it is true that I have (mostly) stopped
> to interact with the persons that have proven to be hostile and not interested in sharing ideas and understanding, but only to
> impose their point of view.
>
> Jacopo
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On May 3, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> ... Though I still believe it's good to get new ideas and especially fixing patches, since you, and now Scott, stopped to review things,
> you have certainly noticed that I commit less. To name a few, for a while now, Andrew, Anil , Jacopo, and Vikas stopped to interact
> as much with the community as they use to. Adam comes from time to time and is always surprising, I hope he will continue. I feel
> that it's not because they have less interest in it, but because they have less time than before to do it. ...
I can confirm that my limited interaction is due to limited time and not to a reaction to issues I see in the community; I still have a strong interest in OFBiz and it also mostly represents the 100% of my work. However it is true that I have (mostly) stopped to interact with the persons that have proven to be hostile and not interested in sharing ideas and understanding, but only to impose their point of view.
Jacopo
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Hi David,
First I appreciate you took the time to put your thoughts on the table. I'm not sure an answer was waited, but here we go.
From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
> Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't review and push back hard enough on contributions. This
> results in a higher than desirable rate of problematic contributions making it into the project, but certainly results in a more
> personable and agreeable human interaction.
Of course, as I committed far more patches than every one else, I understand you choose me to explain your position. I did that not
much because I enjoy personable and agreeable human interaction (which is true), but because I saw that most of contributions were
neglicted. In some case, maybe there were good reasons. But I'm not even sure of that, because there were any feedbacks in some Jira
issue which were very valuable and well done, especially in the deeper framework parts. I believe that if a contributor makes the
effort to upload a patch and explain it, it's worth to at least look at it an give an opinion. I also understand that if you have
not enough time to do it well, then it's better to wait or do nothing. I was able to do that sometimes... Finally I must say that
some patches I committed were very valuable, some less, some should even not have been committed (or not in the state they were). I
can agree with that.
Though I still believe it's good to get new ideas and especially fixing patches, since you, and now Scott, stopped to review things,
you have certainly noticed that I commit less. To name a few, for a while now, Andrew, Anil , Jacopo, and Vikas stopped to interact
as much with the community as they use to. Adam comes from time to time and is always surprising, I hope he will continue. I feel
that it's not because they have less interest in it, but because they have less time than before to do it. And maybe most of active
commiters are in the same situation: we earn a living from OFBiz and that takes now much of our time, because our knowledge is more
used than it was 5 years ago. Another way to interact may be how Joe does: very few but with high value. Unfortunately not all
contribution are crucial, should we neglict them?
I also believe that we (active commiters) are all a bit tired of the volunteer efforts needed by a project like OFBiz. We all agree
it's now mature, and even if not perfect, in a good shape. A good indicator is that a lot of users continue to use it with
confidence.
> Scott's reason is a big part of why I gave up on reviewing and commenting, and also a big part of why I gave up on doing certain
> things in a community-driven way. In other words, early on in the life of OFBiz I spent countless hours answering questions and
> reviewing code in detail and offering feedback in order to help encourage contributions and grow the community, while keeping the
> quality level high. I now consider that to be, for the most part anyway, a big waste of time.
Unfortunately I believe you are right, most of the time people come and go. The time you invested in reviewing, fixing, explaining
is then lost. A volunteer project is not totally an investment, we tend to forget that, because we believe on it (else what are we
doing here?)
> I used to think it was easier to get someone else to do things than to do things myself. For complicated things, I don't think so
> any more. It's easier, more peaceful, more satisfying, and even more rewarding to just do it myself. If others want to get
> involved, they need to demonstrate a high level of competence and significant added value, otherwise they are wasting both my time
> and theirs (ie they should go do something they are good at and stop trying to do something they are not good at; or if it is just
> a problem of experience they should go acquire that experience (perhaps in an open source project of their own, or at least
> something that requires less expertise) and then contribute instead of acquiring that experience as they contribute).
This is certainly true (for complicated things). And was actually how you handled it before the Apache era. I understand it's hard
to do it another way, maybe we should have keep the same way it was done before the Apache era. When it's only small changes (some
very important) it's possible to follow the flow, when a lot of changes are committed a the same time it's above human capabilities.
> Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need to
> rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important word
here...
> So why spend countless hours reviewing things that start out in such a state of poor quality? I'd rather spend my time doing
> something of higher value and creating something of higher quality, and in the process enjoy myself FAR more, and also have better
> relationships with people, especially the people I enjoy having relationships with.
>
> For me, it's not a hard choice any more. Put some effort into your interactions with me or don't expect me to put effort into my
> interactions with you. I prefer to interact with others on my own terms, and I hope others will do the same based on their terms.
This makes sense
> In a voluntary world of free software this naturally leads to the more distributed or "free market" community approach. That's my
> dream now, and hopefully based on a better understanding of human nature than my original ideas about a community model. The dream
> is that each person works to produce the best they can, and we interact with each other based on a respect each others work, and
> the end result is the best work "bubbling to the top" as it were.
Yes hopefully this will (continue to) work, let's see...
Jacques
PS: you see I'm in vacation this week. And I can't find the energy that I put in OFBiz before in such a situation before, something
has changed... Actually it's already a year and half this process began for me...
<<No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man >> Heraclitus
> -David
>
> P.S. I apologize if this wording comes off as a little elitist, I've been reading Atlas Shrugged over recent weeks.
Ha I just noticed your PS while writing mine. Indeed, we are not all equals oj all terms. IIRW Spinoza wrote that laws are here to
protect the weaks when Nietzsche had anothere idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Morality (which is sadly not
well depicted in Wikipedia in English)
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I don't see the things as dark, but yes sometimes there are problems
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support, frequently get attacked and almost always come
>>> out with no result.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't
>>>> get a good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the
>>>>> framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use
>>>>> something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the
>>>>>> framework
>>>>>> using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge
>>>>>> available in the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include
>>>>>> any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and
>>>>>> we can go from there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The document can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>
>>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't review and push back hard enough on contributions. This results in a higher than desirable rate of problematic contributions making it into the project, but certainly results in a more personable and agreeable human interaction.
Scott's reason is a big part of why I gave up on reviewing and commenting, and also a big part of why I gave up on doing certain things in a community-driven way. In other words, early on in the life of OFBiz I spent countless hours answering questions and reviewing code in detail and offering feedback in order to help encourage contributions and grow the community, while keeping the quality level high. I now consider that to be, for the most part anyway, a big waste of time.
I used to think it was easier to get someone else to do things than to do things myself. For complicated things, I don't think so any more. It's easier, more peaceful, more satisfying, and even more rewarding to just do it myself. If others want to get involved, they need to demonstrate a high level of competence and significant added value, otherwise they are wasting both my time and theirs (ie they should go do something they are good at and stop trying to do something they are not good at; or if it is just a problem of experience they should go acquire that experience (perhaps in an open source project of their own, or at least something that requires less expertise) and then contribute instead of acquiring that experience as they contribute).
Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need to rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that.
So why spend countless hours reviewing things that start out in such a state of poor quality? I'd rather spend my time doing something of higher value and creating something of higher quality, and in the process enjoy myself FAR more, and also have better relationships with people, especially the people I enjoy having relationships with.
For me, it's not a hard choice any more. Put some effort into your interactions with me or don't expect me to put effort into my interactions with you. I prefer to interact with others on my own terms, and I hope others will do the same based on their terms.
In a voluntary world of free software this naturally leads to the more distributed or "free market" community approach. That's my dream now, and hopefully based on a better understanding of human nature than my original ideas about a community model. The dream is that each person works to produce the best they can, and we interact with each other based on a respect each others work, and the end result is the best work "bubbling to the top" as it were.
-David
P.S. I apologize if this wording comes off as a little elitist, I've been reading Atlas Shrugged over recent weeks.
On May 2, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I don't see the things as dark, but yes sometimes there are problems
>
> Jacques
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support, frequently get attacked and almost always come
>> out with no result.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't
>>> get a good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the
>>>> framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use
>>>> something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> HotWax Media
>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>
>>>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>>>
>>>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework
>>>>> using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge
>>>>> available in the community.
>>>>>
>>>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include
>>>>> any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and
>>>>> we can go from there.
>>>>>
>>>>> The document can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <jl...@les7arts.com>.
I don't see the things as dark, but yes sometimes there are problems
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
> I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support, frequently get attacked and almost always come
> out with no result.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't
>> get a good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the
>>> framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use
>>> something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>>
>>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework
>>>> using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge
>>>> available in the community.
>>>>
>>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include
>>>> any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and
>>>> we can go from there.
>>>>
>>>> The document can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support, frequently get attacked and almost always come out with no result.
Regards
Scott
On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't get a good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
>
> Jacques
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework
>> from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where
>> poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>
>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework
>>> using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge
>>> available in the community.
>>>
>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any
>>> implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can
>>> go from there.
>>>
>>> The document can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>
>>> -Adrian
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't get a
good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework
> from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where
> poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>
>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework
>> using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge
>> available in the community.
>>
>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any
>> implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can
>> go from there.
>>
>> The document can be found here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>
>> -Adrian
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
+1
Cheers,
Ruppert
On May 2, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>
>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>>
>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>>
>> The document can be found here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
You're right - I forgot about that. Thanks!
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 4:38 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> Some in the community participated in the design. I called for feedback here, and some did, and others didn't.
>
> I even did an initial design and waited about 10 months for feedback before starting implementation. The opportunity was certainly there.
>
> Even now if a really good bit of feedback comes along, or even a really good contribution, it'll go in (and some already have, like from Sam Hamilton for example).
>
> -David
>
>
> On May 2, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Except it's missing the "community participating in the design" part. ;-)
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 5/2/2011 4:30 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>> Good idea. Done.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> We could limit commit access to the new framework.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The document can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Some in the community participated in the design. I called for feedback here, and some did, and others didn't.
I even did an initial design and waited about 10 months for feedback before starting implementation. The opportunity was certainly there.
Even now if a really good bit of feedback comes along, or even a really good contribution, it'll go in (and some already have, like from Sam Hamilton for example).
-David
On May 2, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Except it's missing the "community participating in the design" part. ;-)
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 5/2/2011 4:30 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>> Good idea. Done.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> We could limit commit access to the new framework.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> HotWax Media
>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>
>>>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>>>
>>>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>>>>>
>>>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>>>>>
>>>>> The document can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Except it's missing the "community participating in the design" part. ;-)
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 4:30 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> Good idea. Done.
>
> -David
>
>
> On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> We could limit commit access to the new framework.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>>
>>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>>>>
>>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>>>>
>>>> The document can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Good idea. Done.
-David
On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> We could limit commit access to the new framework.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>>
>>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>>>
>>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>>>
>>> The document can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
We could limit commit access to the new framework.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>>
>> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>>
>> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>>
>> The document can be found here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumped with impunity.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 30/04/2011, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>
> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>
> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>
> The document can be found here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>
> -Adrian
>
Re: Another Framework Vision
Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.
hi Adrian,
I am not that keen on tech. However, it is obvious that the framework needs
to be improved. What I expect from the further improvement of ofbiz
framework are:
1) less dependency
2) less "re-invent the wheel", like scheduler, cache, CMS, etc
I can see Moqui do much better at this point. (But that doesn't mean we
have to use Moqui to replace ofbiz framework.) As a manager, I always heard
from my developers: what's the value to go so deep into ofbiz...but have no
chance to use other common libraries. Furthermore, they don't think ofbiz is
better than other existed libraries, like quarz, ehcache, Jackrabbit. So I
really like Moqui's ecosystem...
3) distributed community
Contributors have different interests and experience. But now ofbiz
components depend on each other in a tight and sometime unreasonable
way(Maybe things are not supposed to be like what they are now).
I am not saying it is good or bad to replace ofbiz framework with Moqui. But
I really look forward to seeing the good ideas from Moqui in Ofbiz.
--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> Since we're discussing framework rewrites and free markets and such, I
> decided to throw my hat into the ring too.
>
> One proposal so far is to replace the OFBiz framework with the Moqui
> project. I have another idea - let's rewrite the framework using the
> existing community. Everyone can participate in the design - thereby
> leveraging the immense wealth of knowledge available in the community.
>
> To kick things off, I created a document describing my vision of an
> application framework. It's brief and it doesn't include any implementation
> details. If there is any interest in this approach, then everyone is free to
> add pages to the document and we can go from there.
>
> The document can be found here:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
>
> -Adrian
>
>