You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Olivier Heintz <ho...@nereide.biz> on 2012/03/20 10:15:29 UTC
Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
New thread for only JCR funstion
Summary of initial discussion:
Jacoppo:
> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
Hans:
>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree
to a removal.
Jacoppo
>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Nicolas Malin" <ma...@librenberry.net>
> Le 20/03/2012 11:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> Or alternatively we could:
>>
>> 1) keep it in framework
>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set
>> of requirements needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework, finalizing the architecture and start
>> working all on the implementation and migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will focus on this
>> refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new development to focus the energy)
> I agree, refactoring content to separate a little more technical and functional element, it's not easier to implement JCR without
> a main reflexion on content.
>
> We implement an EDM with content and an interface between document repository (file, text, sound) and content service appears
> needed, independently than JCR (open the plugin document engine solution :) )
Could be part of the proposed join effort...
Jacques
> Nicolas
>
>
>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a viable options and we will not keep and distribute a
>> component under development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>
>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>
>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>
>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content
>>>>> framework"
>>>> Hans:
>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not improved in the next few months using the content
>>>>>> manager, i would agree to a removal.
>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future
>>>>>>> releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the
>>>>>>> existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save
>>>>>>> a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a
>>>> lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the
>>>> jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but
>>>> not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
>>>>
>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration but as far as I understand it it is intended to be
>>> highly integrated with OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is inline with Olivier's idea of a
>>> plugin, but it is an idea that can be explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a good idea to
>>> keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>
>
> --
> Nicolas MALIN
> Consultant
> Tél : 06.17.66.40.06
> Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
> -------
> Société LibrenBerry
> Tél : 02.48.02.56.12
> Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
>
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Nicolas Malin <ma...@librenberry.net>.
Le 20/03/2012 11:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> Or alternatively we could:
>
> 1) keep it in framework
> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework, finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation and migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new development to focus the energy)
I agree, refactoring content to separate a little more technical and
functional element, it's not easier to implement JCR without a main
reflexion on content.
We implement an EDM with content and an interface between document
repository (file, text, sound) and content service appears needed,
independently than JCR (open the plugin document engine solution :) )
Nicolas
> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>
>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>
>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>
>>> Jacoppo:
>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>> Hans:
>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to a removal.
>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
>>>
>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : 06.17.66.40.06
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : 02.48.02.56.12
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Sounds like a plan
Jacques
From: "Sascha Rodekamp" <sa...@googlemail.com>
> Hi,
>
>> 1) keep it in framework
> +1
>
>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
> +1 - for now the JCR implementation provide the the developer an API
> which helps to create, read, update or delete content in the
> repository. We have no integration in other (i.e. the content)
> applications. So there is no problem to keep the jcr implementation
> out of release 12.04.
>
>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort
> +1 - that was the intention of the Jira Task OFBIZ-4659. There is a
> lot work to do.
> I like the idea having a roadmap, that could possibly speed up the
> development and let people focus on certain features...
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sascha
>
>> 1) keep it in framework
>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set
>> of requirements needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework, finalizing the architecture and start
>> working all on the implementation and migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will focus on this
>> refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new development to focus the energy)
>>
>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a viable options and we will not keep and distribute a
>> component under development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>
>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>
>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>
>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content
>>>>> framework"
>>>>
>>>> Hans:
>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not improved in the next few months using the content
>>>>>> manager, i would agree to a removal.
>>>>
>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future
>>>>>>> releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the
>>>>>>> existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save
>>>>>>> a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a
>>>> lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the
>>>> jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but
>>>> not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration but as far as I understand it it is intended to be
>>> highly integrated with OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is inline with Olivier's idea of a
>>> plugin, but it is an idea that can be explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a good idea to
>>> keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sascha Rodekamp
> Visit the new german OFBiz Blog: http://www.ofbiz.biz
> Lynx-Consulting GmbH
> Johanniskirchplatz 6
> D-33615 Bielefeld
> http://www.lynx.de
>
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Erwan de FERRIERES <er...@nereide.fr>.
Le 20/03/2012 13:18, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>> 1) keep it in framework
> +1
>
>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
> +1 - for now the JCR implementation provide the the developer an API
> which helps to create, read, update or delete content in the
> repository. We have no integration in other (i.e. the content)
> applications. So there is no problem to keep the jcr implementation
> out of release 12.04.
>
>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort
> +1 - that was the intention of the Jira Task OFBIZ-4659. There is a
> lot work to do.
> I like the idea having a roadmap, that could possibly speed up the
> development and let people focus on certain features...
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sascha
>
Works for me.
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Sascha Rodekamp <sa...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
> 1) keep it in framework
+1
> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
+1 - for now the JCR implementation provide the the developer an API
which helps to create, read, update or delete content in the
repository. We have no integration in other (i.e. the content)
applications. So there is no problem to keep the jcr implementation
out of release 12.04.
> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort
+1 - that was the intention of the Jira Task OFBIZ-4659. There is a
lot work to do.
I like the idea having a roadmap, that could possibly speed up the
development and let people focus on certain features...
Thanks and regards,
Sascha
> 1) keep it in framework
> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework, finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation and migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new development to focus the energy)
>
> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>
>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>
>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>
>>> Jacoppo:
>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>>
>>> Hans:
>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to a removal.
>>>
>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
>>>
>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>
--
Sascha Rodekamp
Visit the new german OFBiz Blog: http://www.ofbiz.biz
Lynx-Consulting GmbH
Johanniskirchplatz 6
D-33615 Bielefeld
http://www.lynx.de
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Sascha Rodekamp <sa...@googlemail.com>.
> I don't think JCR should be handled by a plugin. It should be part of core
> framework.
> And, while at it, I don't think it should replace all Content component
> (notably all its data model, and more anyway).
> It's just a better way to handle content repositories (JCR = Java Content
> Repository ;o): content should not go in DB
> We already discussed about reasons for that (versionning, webdav access,
> external HTML editors, etc.)
That is the master plan.
IMHO there is no reason to build a JCR plugin for Ofbiz, i don't see
any real benefit of it.
2012/3/22 Anne <an...@cohsoft.com.au>:
> Keep in framework +1
> Remove from upcoming release +1
> Part of core eventually +1
>
> I think it is (should be) central to content handling, and OFBiz core needs
> to handle content. Therefore it should be in core.
>
> Cheers,
> Anne.
>
> On 22 March 2012 05:04, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>wrote:
>
>> From: "Olivier Heintz" <ho...@nereide.biz>
>>
>> Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Re 1: keep in framework +1
>>>> Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
>>>> future releases until 3 is finished
>>>>
>>> plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming
>>> from customer project, and it's easier for a project
>>> leader on a customer project to decide to use (or not) a addon versus to
>>> use a part of branch.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think JCR should be handled by a plugin. It should be part of core
>> framework.
>> And, while at it, I don't think it should replace all Content component
>> (notably all its data model, and more anyway).
>> It's just a better way to handle content repositories (JCR = Java Content
>> Repository ;o): content should not go in DB
>> We already discussed about reasons for that (versionning, webdav access,
>> external HTML editors, etc.)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> If necessary I would help in making the addon to help contributors which
>>> want to help to do the roadmap define in point 3.
>>>
>>>> Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Excellent roadmapping ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre
>>>>
>>>> Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato<
>>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>>>> het volgende:
>>>>
>>>> Or alternatively we could:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) keep it in framework
>>>>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>>>>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top
>>>>> priority
>>>>> for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements
>>>>> needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework,
>>>>> finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation
>>>>> and
>>>>> migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community
>>>>> will
>>>>> focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new
>>>>> development to focus the energy)
>>>>>
>>>>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is
>>>>> a
>>>>> viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under
>>>>> development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would
>>>>> agree to
>>>>> a removal.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for
>>>>> 12.04 will
>>>>> be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates
>>>>> (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a
>>>>> good
>>>>> reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will
>>>>> save a
>>>>> lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs
>>>>> will
>>>>> be discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place,
>>>>> product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage
>>>>> files, so
>>>>> we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it
>>>>> for
>>>>> older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using
>>>>> not
>>>>> completely implement feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> be able to used it easily.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration
>>>>>>
>>>>> but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated
>>>>> with
>>>>> OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is
>>>>> inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be
>>>>> explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it
>>>>> is a
>>>>> good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the
>>>>> meantime.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> PO Box 2773
> Cheltenham Vic 3192
> Phone: (03) 9585 6788
> Fax: (03) 9585 1086
> Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/
> Email: sales@cohsoft.com.au
>
> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
--
Sascha Rodekamp
Visit the new german OFBiz Blog: http://www.ofbiz.biz
Lynx-Consulting GmbH
Johanniskirchplatz 6
D-33615 Bielefeld
http://www.lynx.de
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
+1
Thanks Anne, easier when neat :o)
Jacques
Anne wrote:
> Keep in framework +1
> Remove from upcoming release +1
> Part of core eventually +1
>
> I think it is (should be) central to content handling, and OFBiz core needs
> to handle content. Therefore it should be in core.
>
> Cheers,
> Anne.
>
> On 22 March 2012 05:04, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>wrote:
>
>> From: "Olivier Heintz" <ho...@nereide.biz>
>>
>> Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Re 1: keep in framework +1
>>>> Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
>>>> future releases until 3 is finished
>>>>
>>> plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming
>>> from customer project, and it's easier for a project
>>> leader on a customer project to decide to use (or not) a addon versus to
>>> use a part of branch.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think JCR should be handled by a plugin. It should be part of core
>> framework.
>> And, while at it, I don't think it should replace all Content component
>> (notably all its data model, and more anyway).
>> It's just a better way to handle content repositories (JCR = Java Content
>> Repository ;o): content should not go in DB
>> We already discussed about reasons for that (versionning, webdav access,
>> external HTML editors, etc.)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> If necessary I would help in making the addon to help contributors which
>>> want to help to do the roadmap define in point 3.
>>>
>>>> Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Excellent roadmapping ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre
>>>>
>>>> Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato<
>>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>>>> het volgende:
>>>>
>>>> Or alternatively we could:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) keep it in framework
>>>>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>>>>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top
>>>>> priority
>>>>> for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements
>>>>> needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework,
>>>>> finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation
>>>>> and
>>>>> migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community
>>>>> will
>>>>> focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new
>>>>> development to focus the energy)
>>>>>
>>>>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is
>>>>> a
>>>>> viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under
>>>>> development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is completed and can replace the existing "content framework" Hans:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would
>>>>> agree to
>>>>> a removal.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for
>>>>> 12.04 will
>>>>> be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates
>>>>> (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a
>>>>> good
>>>>> reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will
>>>>> save a
>>>>> lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs
>>>>> will
>>>>> be discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place,
>>>>> product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage
>>>>> files, so
>>>>> we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it
>>>>> for
>>>>> older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using
>>>>> not
>>>>> completely implement feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> be able to used it easily.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration
>>>>>>
>>>>> but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated
>>>>> with
>>>>> OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is
>>>>> inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be
>>>>> explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it
>>>>> is a
>>>>> good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the
>>>>> meantime.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Anne <an...@cohsoft.com.au>.
Keep in framework +1
Remove from upcoming release +1
Part of core eventually +1
I think it is (should be) central to content handling, and OFBiz core needs
to handle content. Therefore it should be in core.
Cheers,
Anne.
On 22 March 2012 05:04, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>wrote:
> From: "Olivier Heintz" <ho...@nereide.biz>
>
> Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
>>
>>> Re 1: keep in framework +1
>>> Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
>>> future releases until 3 is finished
>>>
>> plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming
>> from customer project, and it's easier for a project
>> leader on a customer project to decide to use (or not) a addon versus to
>> use a part of branch.
>>
>
> I don't think JCR should be handled by a plugin. It should be part of core
> framework.
> And, while at it, I don't think it should replace all Content component
> (notably all its data model, and more anyway).
> It's just a better way to handle content repositories (JCR = Java Content
> Repository ;o): content should not go in DB
> We already discussed about reasons for that (versionning, webdav access,
> external HTML editors, etc.)
>
> Jacques
>
>
> If necessary I would help in making the addon to help contributors which
>> want to help to do the roadmap define in point 3.
>>
>>> Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
>>>
>> +1
>>
>>> Excellent roadmapping ;-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>> Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato<
>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>>> het volgende:
>>>
>>> Or alternatively we could:
>>>>
>>>> 1) keep it in framework
>>>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>>>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top
>>>> priority
>>>> for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements
>>>> needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework,
>>>> finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation
>>>> and
>>>> migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community
>>>> will
>>>> focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new
>>>> development to focus the energy)
>>>>
>>>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is
>>>> a
>>>> viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under
>>>> development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>>>
>>>>> Hans:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would
>>>> agree to
>>>> a removal.
>>>>
>>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for
>>>> 12.04 will
>>>> be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates
>>>> (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a
>>>> good
>>>> reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will
>>>> save a
>>>> lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs
>>>> will
>>>> be discovered.
>>>>
>>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the
>>>>>>
>>>>> company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place,
>>>> product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage
>>>> files, so
>>>> we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for
>>>>>>
>>>>> some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it
>>>> for
>>>> older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using
>>>> not
>>>> completely implement feature.
>>>>
>>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to
>>>>>>
>>>>> be able to used it easily.
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration
>>>>>
>>>> but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated
>>>> with
>>>> OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is
>>>> inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be
>>>> explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it
>>>> is a
>>>> good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the
>>>> meantime.
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Phone: (03) 9585 6788
Fax: (03) 9585 1086
Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/
Email: sales@cohsoft.com.au
Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Olivier Heintz" <ho...@nereide.biz>
> Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
>> Re 1: keep in framework +1
>> Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
>> future releases until 3 is finished
> plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming from customer project, and it's easier for a project
> leader on a customer project to decide to use (or not) a addon versus to use a part of branch.
I don't think JCR should be handled by a plugin. It should be part of core framework.
And, while at it, I don't think it should replace all Content component (notably all its data model, and more anyway).
It's just a better way to handle content repositories (JCR = Java Content Repository ;o): content should not go in DB
We already discussed about reasons for that (versionning, webdav access, external HTML editors, etc.)
Jacques
> If necessary I would help in making the addon to help contributors which want to help to do the roadmap define in point 3.
>> Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
> +1
>> Excellent roadmapping ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato<
>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>>
>>> Or alternatively we could:
>>>
>>> 1) keep it in framework
>>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority
>>> for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements
>>> needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework,
>>> finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation and
>>> migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will
>>> focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new
>>> development to focus the energy)
>>>
>>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a
>>> viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under
>>> development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work
>>> is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>>>> Hans:
>>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
>>> improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to
>>> a removal.
>>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release
>>> branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will
>>> be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates
>>> (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good
>>> reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a
>>> lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will
>>> be discovered.
>>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the
>>> company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place,
>>> product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so
>>> we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for
>>> some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for
>>> older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not
>>> completely implement feature.
>>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to
>>> be able to used it easily.
>>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration
>>> but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with
>>> OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is
>>> inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be
>>> explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a
>>> good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Olivier Heintz <ho...@nereide.biz>.
Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
> Re 1: keep in framework +1
> Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
> future releases until 3 is finished
plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming
from customer project, and it's easier for a project leader on a
customer project to decide to use (or not) a addon versus to use a part
of branch.
If necessary I would help in making the addon to help contributors
which want to help to do the roadmap define in point 3.
> Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
+1
> Excellent roadmapping ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato<
> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>
>> Or alternatively we could:
>>
>> 1) keep it in framework
>> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
>> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority
>> for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements
>> needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework,
>> finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation and
>> migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will
>> focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new
>> development to focus the energy)
>>
>> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a
>> viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under
>> development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>
>>>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>>>
>>>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>>>
>>>> Jacoppo:
>>>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work
>> is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>>> Hans:
>>>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
>> improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to
>> a removal.
>>>> Jacoppo
>>>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release
>> branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will
>> be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates
>> (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good
>> reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a
>> lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will
>> be discovered.
>>>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the
>> company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place,
>> product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so
>> we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>>>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for
>> some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for
>> older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not
>> completely implement feature.
>>>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to
>> be able to used it easily.
>>> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration
>> but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with
>> OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is
>> inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be
>> explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a
>> good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Re 1: keep in framework +1
Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
future releases until 3 is finished
Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
Excellent roadmapping ;-)
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
> Or alternatively we could:
>
> 1) keep it in framework
> 2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
> 3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority
> for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements
> needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework,
> finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation and
> migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will
> focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new
> development to focus the energy)
>
> At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a
> viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under
> development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
> >
> >> New thread for only JCR funstion
> >>
> >> Summary of initial discussion:
> >>
> >> Jacoppo:
> >>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work
> is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
> >>
> >> Hans:
> >>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not
> improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to
> a removal.
> >>
> >> Jacoppo
> >>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release
> branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will
> be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates
> (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good
> reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a
> lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will
> be discovered.
> >>
> >> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the
> company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place,
> product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so
> we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
> >> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for
> some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for
> older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not
> completely implement feature.
> >> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to
> be able to used it easily.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration
> but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with
> OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is
> inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be
> explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a
> good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
>
>
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Or alternatively we could:
1) keep it in framework
2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
3) and then, as a community, we could start the effort (i.e. top priority for upcoming contributions/commits) of defining the set of requirements needed by the applications to replace the existing Content framework, finalizing the architecture and start working all on the implementation and migration of existing applications: this would mean that the community will focus on this refactoring effort for a while (postponing any other new development to focus the energy)
At least in this way we could experiment if the concept of a roadmap is a viable options and we will not keep and distribute a component under development waiting to see if and when something good will come out of it.
Jacopo
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>
>> New thread for only JCR funstion
>>
>> Summary of initial discussion:
>>
>> Jacoppo:
>>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>>
>> Hans:
>>>> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to a removal.
>>
>> Jacoppo
>>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
>>
>> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
>> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
>> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
>>
>
> I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
>
> Jacopo
>
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz JCR function
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
> New thread for only JCR funstion
>
> Summary of initial discussion:
>
> Jacoppo:
>> N) framework/jcr: move back into the Jackrabbit branch until the work is completed and can replace the existing "content framework"
>
> Hans:
> >> Also moving the JCR function out is not a good idea however when not improved in the next few months using the content manager, i would agree to a removal.
>
> Jacoppo
>>>> Keep it mind we are preparing for the creation of the new release branch (12.04): this would mean that all the future releases for 12.04 will be bundled with an incomplete JCR/Jackrabbit integration that duplicates (but not replaces) the existing Component framework. This is alone a good reason for moving this work back to the development branch and will save a lot of future work in backporting features if security issues or bugs will be discovered.
>
> IMO, jcr will be a good enhancement in ofbiz, but currently we(the company I'm working for) are using content component in a lot of place, product, workeffort, project, party, custRequest, .... to manage files, so we area waiting the next step of the jcr OFBiz (content) integration.
> Meanwhile this second step, if jcr was a plugin, we will use it for some new customer project (and maybe contribute on ;-) but not use it for older customer which currently works with OFBiz solution to avoid using not completely implement feature.
> So IMO, jcr should move, branch or extra, but I prefer as a plugin to be able to used it easily.
>
I didn't follow the details of the plans for JCR/Jackrabbit integration but as far as I understand it it is intended to be highly integrated with OFBiz (to replace Content Framework features): I am not sure how this is inline with Olivier's idea of a plugin, but it is an idea that can be explored. However, since we are still in this design phase I think it is a good idea to keep the component in the development branch in the meantime.
Jacopo