Discussion: Spin Off OFBiz Technology

[Adrian Crum-2]

Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.

Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.

Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.

What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.

What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?

-Adrian



     

[Ashish Vijaywargiya]

>> What do you think?

+1.
I don't see any issue in moving code base to Apache Commons library.

--
Ashish

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.
>
> Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.
>
> Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.
>
> What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.
>
> What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.
>
> Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.
>
> Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.
>
> What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.
>
> What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?

That sounds fine to me. Before getting started you might even want to ping the commons PMC to see how they would prefer for you to go about it. They might want you to isolate things as a library and then put it in a jira issue, or maybe they'll just welcome you as a committer for a certain part of the commons repository, or maybe they'll have another preference altogether... :)

-David

[Chris Snow-3]

The entity engine would be good as a library/standalone framework!

Adrian Crum wrote:

> Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.
>
> Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.
>
> Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.
>
> What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.
>
> What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>      
>  

[Adam Heath-2]

Chris Snow wrote:
> The entity engine would be good as a library/standalone framework!

That's a little more difficult; the entity codebase uses a lot of code
from base(in addition to my sql parser, which *is* generic).  All that
code would need to be changed to use other libraries, which is more
work than I would be willing to do at this time.

[Adrian Crum-2]

--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Chris Snow wrote:
> > The entity engine would be good as a
> library/standalone framework!
>
> That's a little more difficult; the entity codebase uses a
> lot of code
> from base(in addition to my sql parser, which *is*
> generic).  All that
> code would need to be changed to use other libraries, which
> is more
> work than I would be willing to do at this time.

On that note, some of the code in base could be replaced with existing libraries - including the ones we already use.

-Adrian

[Chris Snow-3]

Adam Heath wrote:

> Chris Snow wrote:
>  
>> The entity engine would be good as a library/standalone framework!
>>    
>
> That's a little more difficult; the entity codebase uses a lot of code
> from base(in addition to my sql parser, which *is* generic).  All that
> code would need to be changed to use other libraries, which is more
> work than I would be willing to do at this time.
>
>  

It was a nice dream, some more steps towards a more modular ofbiz.  
After making the entity engine a framework a library, maybe next the
service engine...

[Adrian Crum]

Thank you for the suggestion. It is very similar to what I had in mind.
I was planning on introducing myself, offer to adopt the abandoned
project, and wait to see who responds.

-Adrian

David E Jones wrote:

> On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.
>>
>> Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.
>>
>> Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.
>>
>> What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.
>>
>> What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?
>
> That sounds fine to me. Before getting started you might even want to ping the commons PMC to see how they would prefer for you to go about it. They might want you to isolate things as a library and then put it in a jira issue, or maybe they'll just welcome you as a committer for a certain part of the commons repository, or maybe they'll have another preference altogether... :)
>
> -David
>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the code goes away from OFBiz it will be harder for the rest of us committers to contribute anything and if the existing project is abandoned then there's a good chance you'll be flying solo on this one.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 20/01/2010, at 9:13 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Thank you for the suggestion. It is very similar to what I had in mind. I was planning on introducing myself, offer to adopt the abandoned project, and wait to see who responds.
>
> -Adrian
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.
>>>
>>> Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.
>>>
>>> Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.
>>>
>>> What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?
>> That sounds fine to me. Before getting started you might even want to ping the commons PMC to see how they would prefer for you to go about it. They might want you to isolate things as a library and then put it in a jira issue, or maybe they'll just welcome you as a committer for a certain part of the commons repository, or maybe they'll have another preference altogether... :)
>> -David

[Adrian Crum]

Thanks Scott.

I did a little investigating and I discovered the reason it was
abandoned was because one of the developers took the basic idea and
created a new project called Morph. So, there is a chance things will
work the other way around - there might be an existing library we can
use instead of our own conversion code. I will look into it some more
this weekend.

-Adrian

Scott Gray wrote:

> Another thing to keep in mind is that if the code goes away from OFBiz it will be harder for the rest of us committers to contribute anything and if the existing project is abandoned then there's a good chance you'll be flying solo on this one.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 20/01/2010, at 9:13 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the suggestion. It is very similar to what I had in mind. I was planning on introducing myself, offer to adopt the abandoned project, and wait to see who responds.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Something that has been mentioned in passing in previous threads is the possibility of taking some of the OFBiz technologies and making them projects of their own.
>>>>
>>>> Two areas come to my mind that I think are good candidates for something like that: The object type conversion framework and the temporal expressions. I kind of had it in my mind they could be in their own library when I designed them.
>>>>
>>>> Apache Commons has an abandoned conversion project and they are looking for someone to adopt it. I could approach them about having our conversion framework moved there. I believe Apache Commons would be a good home for the Temporal Expressions as well.
>>>>
>>>> What that would mean for us is we won't have to maintain the source code in the project any more. Instead we will include jar files in the project - like any other third party library.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think? Are there any other OFBiz technologies that would be good candidates for a stand-alone library?
>>> That sounds fine to me. Before getting started you might even want to ping the commons PMC to see how they would prefer for you to go about it. They might want you to isolate things as a library and then put it in a jira issue, or maybe they'll just welcome you as a committer for a certain part of the commons repository, or maybe they'll have another preference altogether... :)
>>> -David
>