Re: Evaluating Catalyst and other frameworks

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

Hi Alejandro:

I decided to reply sooner so I don't forget again :-)

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Alejandro Imass <..hidden..> wrote:

>> Absolutely.  What are your ideas here?
>>
>
> Perhaps the p2ee is a bit too radical to port LSMB just like that, but
> I am more than eager for you to take a look at what we're doing and
> see if perhaps you like the framework. Everything is based on defining
> the business processes and these are defined in XML based on Workflow
> (CPAN Workflow).
>
> It's based on Catalyst, but it's not a fork or anything like that. In
> fact is more like individual applications that are developed using
> Catalyst. There are however, components that conform the framework
> that eventually will be published as Catalyst plugins, for example the
> main p2ee controller is a extension of the catalyst rest controller
> ans so forth. In any case, each app is intended to be deployed as a
> CPAN lib, well that's actually not that hard given that Cat apps are
> designed that way.


So as I understand this, it is basically a an application that runs
using Catalyst and Workflow and does various business tasks.
Presumably you handle interoperation with something like web services.
>
> The Inventory Application is very advanced, but I have NOTHING planned
> for GL. In fact I was thinking of interfaciong with GNU Cash, LSMB and
> SL. My development schedule had 3 priority applications: 1) Inventory,
> 2) Sales, 3) Purchasing. I have a couple of old SL clients to migrate
> to p2ee inventory, sales and purchasing with no need for GL.

Ok.  I see a few possible opportunities for collaborating in this.

>
> Anyway, what I offer is to complete my developpment VM (A Sun VM in
> Linux) , as the installation and config would probably drive many away
> right off the bat, and then help you or any one else here to evaluate
> and test what we're doing. I would be more than happy to merge with
> this great effort you have put into LSMB.

I think this is a great idea.  I guess I would invite further comments
as to the following areas:

1)  If we could build very good quality stored procedures for
accessing and creating GL entries, would this be of interest to you?
You could then provide your own interfaces for accessing it without a
lot of work, and hence provide a more unified solution to your
customers.

2)  Would you be interested in further collaborating on the redesign
of the sales and purchasing side of LSMB as we move towards 2.0?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers