Re: Usage Requirements Discussion for 2.0

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:14 PM, david <..hidden..> wrote:
> As a general principle, add-ons seem to be an excellent proposition -
> versatility much enhanced.
>
> I'm curious about not including "invoices against goods/services" as a
> core part of the system. Even if it's modularised for convenience or
> structural reasons, it seems to me to be a fundamental function.

The core function should be defined as "functionality everyone needs
and the needs are extremely stable."  In other words, this follows
from the spirit of "anything to anybody" instead of "everything to
everybody."

Not all services businesses need defined goods and services.  For
example, financial services businesses don't need this at all (yes,
there are a few such businesses using LedgerSMB), and some other
service businesses don't define services (but just add them as AR/AP
transactions.  (While a few financial services businesses don't have
AR proper, the core functionality is the same regardless of whether we
are dealing with AR or AP.)

Secondly the code and accounting is more complex and different
businesses may want to do some things differently.  For example, in
the US, there are three different accepted ways of inventory
valuation.    Having this as an addon with a release cycle separate
from LedgerSMB-core would mean these issues would be easier to work
out without forcing an upgrade to the whole system.

Hope this helps,
Chris Travers