Re: Proposal for 1.5: Move LedgerSMB to Dancer

[Louis <..hidden..>]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Erik Huelsmann wrote:

> Hi Louis,
>
>  
>
> > I use Catalyst for some things, and it seems to me to be quite heavy. 
> > Dancer/Dancer2 I am not familiar with, but as far as LedgerSMB is 
> > concerned I'll always be more of a user than a developer.
>
>
> Regardless, your feedback is very much appreciated!
>  
> >       I would like to see LedgerSMB move into a framework. I see that
> >       as part of the overall attitude that LedgerSMB is part of a
> >       larger ecosystem rather than one man's labor.
>
>
> This is an interesting point you're making here, however, there are some assumptions
> assumptions behind it that - if you have some time to do so - I would really love to
> see stated. (This is not an attack, it's really that I may be missing some of the
> finer points that are behind your point.)
>
> What do you think we have to gain by moving to a framework? Usually, frameworks
> restrict developers by requiring specific authentication schemes. Or by requiring
> specific database backends. Or by having a specific templating engine or ORM mapper.
> Since none of that is currently in place for LedgerSMB (by which I mean none of it is
> compliant with any of the web frameworks that I know of and hence development effort
> is required to get there), what do you imagine to be gained by the project (both short
> term and long term gains would be interesting, especially since there's an inherent
> short term cost in my view of things).

In the following, you can read "your application" as "LedgerSMB".

Well, every web application is to a certain extent either using a 
framework or creating their own framework. Eventually you will choose a 
template method and other middleware and have to manage/develop your 
application around them.

While choosing a framework limits some of your choices, it allows other 
folks to more easily integrate your application into a larger system. Of 
course, framework choice can have a big effect on this. In my case, I was 
thinking that the ability to write a plugin for ledgersmb to accept 
inventory and vendor information from my bibliographic system. In a 
framework, the plugin or an example there of, may already exist.

Another potential win could be that people working on the framework 
improving and fixing parts of your application as a result of work on the 
framework itself.

It also can stand for your project demonstrating the ability to collaborate 
and cooperate with other projects, which stands in contrast to say, 
SQL-ledger.

I can't say that I have spent hours chewing it over. It is more of a 
knee-jerk reaction to the idea cooperatively using another projects work.


> Talking to Chris earlier today, he told me he expected long term benefits on at least
> these items (I hope you concur and maybe think of more):
>
> 1. Creation of an API (due to the availability of a resource->entrypoint mapper and a
> serializers)
> 2. Websockets
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bye,
> Erik.
>
> http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
> Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/

_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
..hidden..
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel