separation of the framework: some statistics.

[hans_bakker]

Is the separation still feasible?

References in the framework:
number of
  partyId              270
  contentId            177
  dataResourceId        53
  communicationEventId: 11

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Adrian Crum-2]

We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?

*ponders*

-Adrian


--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Hans Bakker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
> Subject: separation of the framework: some statistics.
> To: "dev" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 1:13 AM
> Is the separation still feasible?
>
> References in the framework:
> number of
>   partyId           
>   270
>   contentId           
> 177
>   dataResourceId        53
>   communicationEventId: 11
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive
> rates
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Hans,

these are interesting numbers, that clearly shows what we somewhat already know: there is still some good work to do in order to properly separate the framework.
However, the numbers also suggest some interesting directions: Content, DataResource, CommunicationEvent should probably be moved to the framework; partyId is a bigger problem: we should try to remove the dependency if possible, or we could follow a shorter path and move the Party entity (but not Person, PartyGroup, Contact* etc...) to the framework.

Thanks for bringing up these numbers, this discussion is an important one.

Cheers,

Jacopo



On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Is the separation still feasible?
>
> References in the framework:
> number of
>  partyId              270
>  contentId            177
>  dataResourceId        53
>  communicationEventId: 11
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Adrian Crum wrote:
> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?

apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?
>
> apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.

If anyone is seriously considering a manned mission to Mars I'd be interested in participating, even if that means just helping it to fail as spectacularly as possible. ;)

-David

[Adam Heath-2]

David E Jones wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?
>> apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.
>
> If anyone is seriously considering a manned mission to Mars I'd be interested in participating, even if that means just helping it to fail as spectacularly as possible. ;)

Are you saying that you want to escape from everyone else still here
on earth?  What, are we not good enough for you?

[Adrian Crum]

Adam Heath wrote:
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?
>
> apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.

The apples to oranges comparison was intentional. The mission to the
Moon succeeded using computers comparable to today's digital watch.
Today we send probes to Mars using far better technology - yet we have a
higher failure rate than the Moon missions. The difference is distance -
Mars is harder to reach than the Moon.


-Adrian

[Adam Heath-2]

Adrian Crum wrote:

> Adam Heath wrote:
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success
>>> rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the
>>> separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?
>>
>> apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.
>
> The apples to oranges comparison was intentional. The mission to the
> Moon succeeded using computers comparable to today's digital watch.
> Today we send probes to Mars using far better technology - yet we have a
> higher failure rate than the Moon missions. The difference is distance -
> Mars is harder to reach than the Moon.

Funny.  I can go down to the corner store and get a mars bar or a moon
pie; both are just as difficult.

[Adrian Crum]

Adam Heath wrote:

> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Adam Heath wrote:
>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success
>>>> rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the
>>>> separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?
>>> apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.
>> The apples to oranges comparison was intentional. The mission to the
>> Moon succeeded using computers comparable to today's digital watch.
>> Today we send probes to Mars using far better technology - yet we have a
>> higher failure rate than the Moon missions. The difference is distance -
>> Mars is harder to reach than the Moon.
>
> Funny.  I can go down to the corner store and get a mars bar or a moon
> pie; both are just as difficult.

*snickers*

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> David E Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> We had pretty good success putting a man on the Moon, but our success rate getting a probe to Mars is about 50 percent. So, is the separation of the framework the Moon or Mars?
>>> apples to oranges.  We haven't attempted to put a man on mars.
>>
>> If anyone is seriously considering a manned mission to Mars I'd be interested in participating, even if that means just helping it to fail as spectacularly as possible. ;)
>
> Are you saying that you want to escape from everyone else still here
> on earth?  What, are we not good enough for you?

I never expected the mission to actually leave the ground. My intention is the purest around: to get paid to be involved with an abject failure. There is no reason to get frustrated or upset by failures. These days I like to look at failures as a refreshing way to introduce changes in ones life and in a very zen way move away from stress caused by an excess of responsibility and toward the peace that we all want so badly in life.

So no, I'm not trying to escape, just want to be involved with adding some measure of peace to a chaotic and difficult world. Peace through failure... I wonder if that would make a good political platform? I guess peace through dead people and/or theft of time and money from the populace (with only threats of making more dead people) is far more compatible with the current political environment.

What that means for the here and now is... oh wait... I should have picked a goal for my argument before making assertions. Nevermind.

-David