Re: Looking beyond 1.3: Kernalization and requirements proposals.

[Luke <..hidden..>]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Chris Travers wrote:

> The basic approach I would like to push is that of "kernalization," or
> of essentially creating a smaller project with more optional addons.
> There is no reason for a financial services business to have inventory
> control, and multiple types of POS modules should be eventually
> available for different industries (food service and retail sales have
> different requirements for example).  This would also push the system
> much further towards being a platform for applications distributed
> with a sample application.

For what it's worth, I, big surprise, support this.

I am more of a user than a developer right now, but this would make the 
development door a bit easier to pass through, I should think.

Can the codebase be moved to PHP while you're at it?;-)  (A guy can dream, 
even if unrealistically)

> Under this approach, the core codebase would be much smaller with
> LedgerSMB 2.0 when it is first released and the core feature set will
> be much smaller.  In particular, I am thinking that the minimal
> featureset used by general businesses should be included here:  GL,
> Financial statements, and account management, AR/AP transactions, and
> basic customer/vendor management.  This will also mean we will have
> fewer CPAN modules required and a much simpler database than in 1.3.

I'm all for fewer CPAN modules being required.  What is the difference 
between "basic" and "full" customer/vendor management?

Am I correct that without an inventory framework, it would not be possible 
to provide invoice functionality as we now think of it?
Some sort of simplified service invoice would have to be included, 
overrideable by a full invoice with the inventory package.

Luke