Open Source Business Library (OSBL) 1.0 released

Discussions

News: Open Source Business Library (OSBL) 1.0 released

  1. Open Source Business Library (OSBL) 1.0 released (34 messages)

    Open Source Business Library (OSBL) 1.0 has been released. This library's goal is to provide an open solution that efficiently supports work processes in a business environment. There are many Open Source components on the market, some of them of a very high quality, that provide solutions for individual aspects of this. However, we feel that individually they fall short in achieving a complete solution; the decisive factor is their integration into a coherent whole. The purpose of the OSBL is to achieve this integration. It combines several well-known Open Source Java components in a way that allows for an easy and effective implementation of process-driven web applications. Along the components are Spring, Hibernate, wingS, OGNL or MVEL and some Apache Commons commponents. The OSBL provides a web UI framework, an object oriented process engine with subject- and task-lists, an O/R mapper, a plugin manager, a window manager, different navigation strategies and some powerful development tools like a localization item collector, a metadata browser, a service browser and the like. Basic business components like identity management and organization management along with authentication and authorization supplement the technical platform. While you gain the most benefit of the OSBL if you use it as a whole, you are still free to replace most components. Then of course, you have to accomplish the integration effort for your individual choices. The OSBL optimizes the economy of integration while coupling the components as loose as possible. At the moment, there is no redundancy in the component set, although this might change on reasonable demand. Release This is the first officially announced release. It covers everything required to build sophisticated master data management applications and process based applications with services, relational persistence, a web UI, authentication and authorization, identity management, org management and the like. Previous releases were available as subversion tags only. Nevertheless starting with version 0.8 the OSBL has already been used successfully for several projects, including a full-blown e-procurement solution by Wilken GmbH and other organisations. Future releases will provide additional components like number ranges, parameterization, groupware- and dms- integration as well as technical features like versioning, dynamic attributes and change tracking. Demo and Documentation There are two demo installations available, the standard osbl demo and the set of gouvernment applications. Documentation is available on the Wiki. The tarball can be downloaded from SourceForge. The OSBL is offered to the Open Source community under a Dual Licensing Model. The OSBL is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License GPL. A Commercial license must be obtained for proprietary, commercial development. Message was edited by: joeo@enigmastation.com

    Threaded Messages (34)

  2. making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    It combines several well-known Open Source Java components in a way that allows for an easy and effective implementation of process-driven web applications ... The OSBL is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License GPL. A Commercial license must be obtained for proprietary, commercial development.
    I'm not sure about the extent of additional code build on top of the "Spring, Hibernate, wingS, OGNL, MVEL" -foundation, but my first (totally uneducated) gut reaction was that this project exploits financially others hard work. Secondly, it is not correct to say that "Commercial license must be obtaned for proprietary, commercial development", because AFAIK nothing in GPL prevents commercial, proprietary development. Only thing that GPL prevents is distribution of software across compnany/organization boundaries unless source code is released. /Henri Karapuu
  3. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Secondly, it is not correct to say that "Commercial license must be obtaned for proprietary, commercial development", because AFAIK nothing in GPL prevents commercial, proprietary development. Only thing that GPL prevents is distribution of software across compnany/organization boundaries unless source code is released.

    /Henri Karapuu
    Maybe they mean something like ICE license from ZeroC http://zeroc.com/ Guido
  4. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Secondly, it is not correct to say that "Commercial license must be obtaned for proprietary, commercial development", because AFAIK nothing in GPL prevents commercial, proprietary development. Only thing that GPL prevents is distribution of software across compnany/organization boundaries unless source code is released.

    /Henri Karapuu

    Maybe they mean something like ICE license from ZeroC http://zeroc.com/

    Guido
    Maybe, but GPL is GPL is GPL. Remember, just because something is GPL doesn't give ANY requirement that I give ANYONE the source code. I only have to give you the source if I also happen to give you the binary, and I can't stop you from doing what you want with the source code once you get it. But if you want my source code, you're going to have to buy my binary for eleventy zillion dollars, or find someone else who I sold the binary to who is willing to give you their eleventy zillion dollar investment. Good luck with that. And this stuff is so funny anyway. First, the folks who use these things are internal organizations or contracting VARs doing development for clients, who almost always, inevitably, get the source code anyway. It's folly, especially nowadays, for folks to not have source code to their major internal systems (mind this is coming from someone who simply does not believe any major business system should not be maintained either in house or through a very strong contract with the developer, as no two systems are alike). But, anyway, and for those who want to use something like this and have some sort or proprietary, "No source for you bucko", system, then write it as a Remote EJB or a webservice and integrate over the wire. Voila! Bundling in a App server does not a GPL bundling make. There's nothing stopping me from having a GPL'd application deployed in my app server and a non-GPL'd application in my appserver. The GPL'd app does not make everything in the app server GPL. GPL on the client, closed source on the server. Paraphrasing: "Commercial developers treat the GPL as damage, and route around it." Have a nice day.
  5. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Oh please - the commercial license bit is pretty standard for dual-license strategies. He's referring to the fact that if you want the software under their non-GPL commercial license, you have to pay them for it. Otherwise, you have to license it and any derivative software under the GPL. You are correct that the GPL does not preclude commercial development - the re-licensing only applies to those who do not wish to use the GPL. It's interesting to note how many projects and companies these days see the value in using the GPL to protect developers rights - in addition to users' rights. Your first point is just wrong. If there is value in integrating tools and building apps on top of that, then people will pay for it. Under your argument, pretty much everyone selling free software is financially "exploiting" others hard work - including Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, JBoss, and Hyperic (since we include code from some open source projects in HQ). If there is no value in what OSBL provides, then no one will pay for it. It's pretty simple, actually. -John Mark Hyperic Community Manager http://www.hyperic.com/
  6. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Oh please - the commercial license bit is pretty standard for dual-license strategies. He's referring to the fact that if you want the software under their non-GPL commercial license, you have to pay them for it.
    Yes, of course. But i wasn't talking about that. I just corrected the wrong interpretation of GPL in regards of commercial development.
    Under your argument, pretty much everyone selling free software is financially "exploiting" others hard work - including Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, JBoss
    Indeed. You are naming the "Axis of Evil" :) Okey seriously.. Of course i have nothing against products that use OS projects 'behind the scenes' and build significant code and functionality on top of them. It's about the degree of 'own code' vs 'others code'. For example enterpriseDB is allegedly 95% postgres code, and they are selling that 95% plus their own 5% together, taking 100% of the money. I'd go as far as call that 'exploiting'. /Henri Karapuu
  7. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Hi Henri, please go and download the osbl in order to check wether the "the degree of 'own code' vs 'others code" meets your personal taste. Holger PS: Thanks John Mark, for putting the idea across very well!
  8. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Hi Henri,

    please go and download the osbl in order to check wether the "the degree of 'own code' vs 'others code" meets your personal taste.
    I clearly stated that it was my "first completely uneducated gut reaction". The way how i saw it was you emphasized the underlaying projects and integrating them together, and then asked for money. Together that and the incorrect GPL talk caused very bad vibes towards your product. If my first reaction was wrong, it may be my fault, or alternatively you may want to consider tuning your marketing message so that people don't get the wrong impression... I.e. emphasize more the concrete benefits of your product, and don't talk BS about GPL. /Henri Karapuu
  9. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    Then let's conclude .. your first impression was wrong and my wording was mistakable.
  10. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    I clearly stated that it was my "first completely uneducated gut reaction".

    The way how i saw it was you emphasized the underlaying projects and integrating them together, and then asked for money. Together that and the incorrect GPL talk caused very bad vibes towards your product.

    If my first reaction was wrong, it may be my fault, or alternatively you may want to consider tuning your marketing message so that people don't get the wrong impression... I.e. emphasize more the concrete benefits of your product, and don't talk BS about GPL.
    You've gone on enough. There's no BS about the GPL coming from them. Nobody else misundertood. You talk about "people" getting the wrong impression, but it looks like it's just you. You are misinterpreting what he meant by proprietary development, trying to imply that he blurs the boundary between proprietary and GPL development, when he didn't do anything other than (rightly) recognize that there is a boundary. This is standard a dual license and it's quite common. On the other point, regarding amount of original code, you are just wrong. If your are going to post a "first completely uneducated gut reaction" that is wrong, then at least admit it's wrong when called on it. Blaming their "marketing message" is a sad excuse for you own laziness in not fact checking your criticisms by visiting their site. Why are you posting FUD?
  11. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    There's no BS about the GPL coming from them.
    Saying that GPL prevents proprietary, commercial development is simply not true. I'm also well aware of the dual licensing models, and have nothing against them.
    trying to imply that he blurs the boundary between proprietary and GPL development
    I didn't imply anything like that. My only point in this regard was that the original poster made GPL sound more restrictive than it is.
    If your are going to post a "first completely uneducated gut reaction" that is wrong, then at least admit it's wrong when called on it. Blaming their "marketing message" is a sad excuse for you own laziness in not fact checking your criticisms by visiting their site.
    I did check their site. Both the main front page and the documentation page are largely about the open source projects they use. Just to give one example the documentation starts "Below is a list of the most important components and their specific characteristics.", and goes on listing OS projects like Spring, Hibernate, wingS and others. I do not feel that reaching the conclusion that i did was unreasonable, and i'm not apologizing that. However, i did write my original post too hastily and too impolitely. Reading it again now, it is clear that nothing productive could had followed from it. For those i do apologize. /Henri Karapuu
  12. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]


    There's no BS about the GPL coming from them.

    Saying that GPL prevents proprietary, commercial development is simply not true. I'm also well aware of the dual licensing models, and have nothing against them.


    trying to imply that he blurs the boundary between proprietary and GPL development

    I didn't imply anything like that. My only point in this regard was that the original poster made GPL sound more restrictive than it is.


    If your are going to post a "first completely uneducated gut reaction" that is wrong, then at least admit it's wrong when called on it. Blaming their "marketing message" is a sad excuse for you own laziness in not fact checking your criticisms by visiting their site.

    I did check their site.

    Both the main front page and the documentation page are largely about the open source projects they use. Just to give one example the documentation starts "Below is a list of the most important components and their specific characteristics.", and goes on listing OS projects like Spring, Hibernate, wingS and others.

    I do not feel that reaching the conclusion that i did was unreasonable, and i'm not apologizing that.

    However, i did write my original post too hastily and too impolitely. Reading it again now, it is clear that nothing productive could had followed from it. For those i do apologize.

    /Henri Karapuu
    Hi, I've recently educated myself in the ins and outs of open source software, and frankly any commercial exploitation of work offered freely by volunteers leaves me uncomfortable too. Personally, I believe that open source is best when someone is scratching their own itch (like Rails) or when a group decide to work collectively to scratch a common itch (like Apache or GNU/Linux). My ethics can also just about tolerate the situation where a commercial vendor is adding value to a code base that is essentially common property and beyond their control (like the GNU/Linux distributions). What we are beginning to see more of now though is cases where the code is open source yes, even GPL, but the code base/product is dominated by a single vendor. To me this seems to break the spirit of freedom (whoops we shouldn't be using that word anymore :^)). It seems to me that these new breed of open source businesses seek to own and control what should be common property, owned by everyone and controlled by no one. Both Interface21 and JBoss have this feel to me, and the question in my mind is whether they are serving themselves or whether they are serving the community at large? I'm talking more about the spirit rather than the letter of the law (license :^)) . BTW, I am discussing OSS in general and I have no opinion on this specific open source product. Paul.
  13. I don't understand[ Go to top ]


    Hi,

    I've recently educated myself in the ins and outs of open source software, and frankly any commercial exploitation of work offered freely by volunteers leaves me uncomfortable too.

    Personally, I believe that open source is best when someone is scratching their own itch (like Rails) or when a group decide to work collectively to scratch a common itch (like Apache or GNU/Linux). My ethics can also just about tolerate the situation where a commercial vendor is adding value to a code base that is essentially common property and beyond their control (like the GNU/Linux distributions).

    What we are beginning to see more of now though is cases where the code is open source yes, even GPL, but the code base/product is dominated by a single vendor.

    To me this seems to break the spirit of freedom (whoops we shouldn't be using that word anymore :^)).

    It seems to me that these new breed of open source businesses seek to own and control what should be common property, owned by everyone and controlled by no one.

    Both Interface21 and JBoss have this feel to me, and the question in my mind is whether they are serving themselves or whether they are serving the community at large?

    I'm talking more about the spirit rather than the letter of the law (license :^)) . BTW, I am discussing OSS in general and I have no opinion on this specific open source product.

    Paul.
    I've heard similar sentiments for about 8 years now, and frankly, I just don't understand. Let's look at Red Hat, a well-known example - they make money off of many open source projects because they can. Because they've built a reputation around their ability to deliver such projects in a form that is readily digested by their users. Customers find value in this, which is why they pay for it. So what of these individual projects? What if they don't get paid? Asuming they don't get paid, you can really only point to one reason: because no one thought it was of high enough value to pay for it. Whether or not Red Hat is in the picture to make money off of their distribution and support is immaterial - either way, this hypothetical open source project is not making money. However, *with* the existence of Red Hat, suddenly these open source developers have a conduit to a rather large audience and now have business opportunities that would not otherwise be possible. I don't understand why the question of open source developers getting paid keeps coming up. If people don't get paid, it's not Red Hat's (or anyone else's) fault. But I don't believe that open source developers don't get paid - in fact, I think the vast majority of developers get paid in some form or another. Those who cut their teeth on personal projects will surely be able to parlay that into some form of employment in the very near future. Or they're paid by their company to work on a side project that's not a core piece of software. OR, as is increasingly true, they work for a company that sees the light and pays them to work on their core product, which happens to be Open Source. This is not rocket science. The early open source nay-sayers always contended that open source wouldn't last because no one would get paid for it. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. -John Mark http://www.hyperic.com/
  14. Re: I don't understand[ Go to top ]

    Hi John, My problem isn't with people getting paid. I get paid. The question mark is people getting paid off the back of the work of others who offered their time freely to the community as a gift. The other issue (the main issue I think), is using Open Source as a marketing strategy, exploiting the ethical reputation that free software has built up over many years for market gain. We are talking about ethics and these are tricky issues with no black and white, hence the way I framed my post. Take the example of Red-Hat that you raised. I agree Linux Distributions do add value, a value that people are quite willing to pay for. Red-hat does not control Linux in the same way that Microsoft controls Windows Vista and the ethics of free software (free as in freedom of speech not Beer) is not compromised in anyway. When You look at Red-Hat/JBoss however and something like Seam, the issue of control and freedom is less clear. At the end of the day it is down to each of us which tools we choose and which projects we contribute to and why. The reason for my post is to prompt discussion and thought. I've raised this issue before and it has always been seen as an attack. It is not. Whilst I'm very happy to use open source, I personally would be less than happy to contribute my time to something like JBoss just to watch Marc McFleury laugh all the way to the Bank! If developers stop gifting their time freely because they no longer think that they are making a positive difference, then the supposed benefits of OSS will cease. Paul.
  15. JBoss[ Go to top ]

    Whilst I'm very happy to use open source, I personally would be less than happy to contribute my time to something like JBoss just to watch Marc McFleury laugh all the way to the Bank
    I dont understand the relevance of the JBoss example here. The JBoss server is still available as Open Source today (as is Hibernate), and anyone can benefit from it. Nobody was mislead or exploited as far as I can tell. Christian
  16. Re: JBoss[ Go to top ]

    The JBoss server is still available as Open Source today (as is Hibernate), and anyone can benefit from it. Nobody was mislead or exploited as far as I can tell.
    It seems that there were plenty of contributors to the JBoss app server, outside of the Jboss Inc. However, Jboss Inc was the one who got the trademark for the software, and in this case it covers even services. If i'v understood correctly this means that nobody is allowed to advertise any services for 'Jboss' name -- and this includes also the people who have contributed significant portions to the original Jboss app server. So, at the time of the Red Hat deal Marc et all cash the 350mil, most of the non Jboss Inc contributors don't get anything, and they are not even allowed to sell (or at least market by Jboss name) their expertise. I'm sure that the issue is more complex than this, and i'm by no means expert on this matter (or personally involved), but it sure doesn't leave me warm and fuzzy feeling about Jboss Inc. "JBoss Inc. has now on this issue shown that it intends to forcefully protect its trademark for services around JBoss, a trademark that we believe the owner, Marc Fleury, should not have received in the first place. As but one example, if this practice is continued it would mean that I, as a co-founder and core contributor to the JBoss Application Server, would not be allowed to market and conduct training sessions for JBoss." Source: http://thejbossissue.blogspot.com/2005/10/question-of-intent.html /Henri Karapuu
  17. Re: JBoss[ Go to top ]

    It seems that there were plenty of contributors to the JBoss app server, outside of the Jboss Inc. However, Jboss Inc was the one who got the trademark for the software, and in this case it covers even services. If i'v understood correctly this means that nobody is allowed to advertise any services for 'Jboss' name -- and this includes also the people who have contributed significant portions to the original Jboss app server...
    Henri I understand your complaints but ANYONE can get the JBoss source code and change any reference to the JBoss name and rename as JBuzz and run a new JBoss-clean application server. Of course the license must remain as LGPL. Why hasn't anyone done this before? because software is not only source code, is expertise, is support... This is not new Oracle has rebranded Red Hat Enterprise Linux, because Oracle *can*, of course Oracle has the budget and expertise to follow a different path, the RHEL source code is only the foundation. It is fair because is the nature of open source licenses. Jose M. Arranz JNIEasy JNI with no JNI
  18. Re: JBoss[ Go to top ]

    Henri I understand your complaints but ANYONE can get the JBoss source code and change any reference to the JBoss name and rename as JBuzz and run a new JBoss-clean application server. Of course the license must remain as LGPL.
    Hi Jose, Yes, but the JBoss name has already captured a certain amount of mind/market share, based on the efforts of the original contributors. Should the use of that name be restricted in the way that it has? Shouldn't the freedoms that appear in the code license also be applied to the product too? I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel qualified to answer these questions, but I know what my intuition tells me. There are other ways we can organise. The Squeak foundation is an interesting approach, so is Apache. The issue IMO is how we protect certain freedoms as a developer community. Why Should I not be able to set myself up in direct competition with another OSS vendor providing a competing service for the same open source product? Short of forking the code it sounds pretty much like vendor lock-in to me. Isn't this one of the things that OSS is ment to avoid? I don't want to make this about JBoss. I'm talking about the general case. Paul.
  19. Re: JBoss[ Go to top ]

    Yes, but the JBoss name has already captured a certain amount of mind/market share, based on the efforts of the original contributors. Should the use of that name be restricted in the way that it has?
    I don't have the definitive answer. The only restricted thing is the name, anyway it has deep implications because the "free" product has a "name".
    Shouldn't the freedoms that appear in the code license also be applied to the product too?
    The product is LGPL.
    Why Should I not be able to set myself up in direct competition with another OSS vendor providing a competing service for the same open source product?
    I think you can you must clearly differentiate the JBoss product from JBoss company. I remember this discussion sometime ago here at TSS, and I'm not RedHat.
    Short of forking the code it sounds pretty much like vendor lock-in to me.
    OSS doesn't avoid vendor lock-in, replace vendor by product.
    Isn't this one of the things that OSS is ment to avoid?
    No, only standards promote vendor/product independence, and usually fail too (extras, unspecified behavior by the standard, bad standards...). I think we are entering in a new phase, now we hardly can differentiate when a OSS product is profit based or non-profit. This new phase in the OSS world starts to clearly differentiate between OSS products with "non-profit/NGO spirit" and OSS products with "profit oriented/company spirit". This is ok to avoid contributor confusion: a contributor looking for "community" interest (non-profit/NGO spirit) or self interest with indirect benefit to the community (profit/company spirit), they both are valid in the correct OSS project.
  20. Re: JBoss[ Go to top ]

    Hi Jose,
    I think we are entering in a new phase, now we hardly can differentiate when a OSS product is profit based or non-profit. This new phase in the OSS world starts to clearly differentiate between OSS products with "non-profit/NGO spirit" and OSS products with "profit oriented/company spirit". This is ok to avoid contributor confusion: a contributor looking for "community" interest (non-profit/NGO spirit) or self interest with indirect benefit to the community (profit/company spirit), they both are valid in the correct OSS project.
    I agree. Unfortunately all OSS projects tend to market themselves as "community driven" or "comunity spirited", which means that you need to probe very carefully to tell whether such a label is truly merited. Paul.
  21. Re: I don't understand[ Go to top ]

    .. Emotionally I agree and share 100% Paul's sentiments about this "uncomfortable feeling", caused by money being made from other peoples' work etc. Rationally I now have to agree 100% with Jose's and John's well thought out reasonings about "nothing wrong is done", because the money being made is both perfectly legal and making it is accepted or even encouraged by the original developers. /Henri Karapuu
  22. Henri, your aren't being fair, I remember a comment from you in a previous discussion (this is a *kind* claim, please don't bother) Dual licensing is a way to build the kind of "healthy" software industry you claimed this day. The selected license defines third party rights. The LGPL license *promotes* other people to make business with *no* return making derivative works linking the LGPL code, these derivative works may be LGPL, GPL, BSD, closed source what you like. The guy releasing a LGPL product is saying: "I happy if you exploit my work as you want whether you only link my code" (otherwise the guy has no brain selecting LGPL). BSD goes beyond: "you can build Sun if you want, please mail me with 'thanks'" ;) JBoss guys are happy if you make very much money with their LGPL products because if you don't make money no return will be for them as support, consulting, training... I remember the day when McFleury wailed about the LGPL nature of JBoss, something like "we were too generous": tons of downloads, no very much money return (support etc), with GPL the JBoss team could make money with some kind of dual licensing. Anyway JBoss products are worked well with LGPL (financially). Posgresql is BSD, the EnterpriseDB fork is fair, is worth to pay? I don't know, if the improvement is very small the Posgresql guys can make this improvement in a few days. Sometimes some open software is released initially by universities (Posgresql) and promote business is a university duty, this is because picked licenses are not restrictives (BSD was invented in Berkeley). Jose M. Arranz JNIEasy C/C++ meets Java with no JNI and reflection.
  23. Henri, your aren't being fair, I remember a comment from you in a previous discussion (this is a *kind* claim, please don't bother)

    Dual licensing is a way to build the kind of "healthy" software industry you claimed this day.
    Yes, as i said in the thread you are referring i indeed support very much the idea of commercial software tools, and believe they are good for the industry at large. The way how i saw the OSBL was that they package bunch of OS projects together and try to make a buck out of it. Add to that the incorrect interpretation of GPL posted in a really stereotypic "evil GPL is going to eat you" style FUD, and you can perhaps understand why i reacted badly to this particular software, even though i'm a proponent of commercial software in general. However, you make make a great point about LGPL and other liberal licenses. My feeling about that hasn't changed at all -- i feel bad about people commercializing others work without the original inventors making money. But, as you say, when even the inventors accept and welcome the 'exploitation' my feelings are clearly not justified, i'm just plain wrong, and should not had opened my mouth in the first place. Perhaps i need to work this out in therapy, or start my own OS project, let others get rich with it, and then experience the true Joy of Giving when the other dudes drive by in a ferrari :-) /Henri Karapuu
  24. Perhaps i need to work this out in therapy, or start my own OS project, let others get rich with it, and then experience the true Joy of Giving when the other dudes drive by in a ferrari :-)

    /Henri Karapuu
    When are you going to start? I'm already selecting color :) Seriously: use GPL in your open source project. Why does Sun use GPL? because they don't want to see "profitable forks" of Sun's JVM, NetBeans, Solaris etc, as they still hold the intellectual property (owners of source code) they can relicense them as they want (or build closed source derivatives like Real Time JVM)... again dual licensing.
  25. Now I thought business library would mean a library that contains business objects such as credit, cover, customer and stuff. The same story as with business objects earlier just gets repeated: things are named something with "business" and it is about persistence and GUIs ... Cheers, Olli
  26. Re: making money from others work?[ Go to top ]

    I'm not sure about the extent of additional code build on top of the "Spring, Hibernate, wingS, OGNL, MVEL" -foundation, but my first (totally uneducated) gut reaction was that this project exploits financially others hard work.
    So what? Any furniture builder exploits the hard work of the woodworkers, the saw mill (The poor Waltons!), the nuts and bolts producer, the hammer developer and so on. Only thing is, you pay for the hammer and the wood in the first place. If the Waltons give away their wood, it's their fault (or, of course, it is Thanksgiving)!
  27. JVM crash[ Go to top ]

    This is exactly what you love to see right after an announcement! # # An unexpected error has been detected by Java Runtime Environment: # # SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0xb7e579b6, pid=20480, tid=2278296480 # # Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (1.6.0-b105 mixed mode) # Problematic frame: # C [libc.so.6+0x299b6] sigqueue+0x76 # # An error report file with more information is saved as hs_err_pid20480.log # # If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit: # http://java.sun.com/webapps/bugreport/crash.jsp # The demo is up again now.
  28. Where it is possible commit errors? What about uncorrect encoding? Probably to see dbms data model without downloading all source code?
  29. There is a JIRA issue tracker. What do you mean with incorrect encoding? The webapp is using UTF-8 and the resource.properties are also encoded in UTF-8 (spring can read non iso-8859-1 resource files). The oracle instance is using iso-8859-1 .. that might be insufficient. The db schema of the demos is automatically created from hibernate. It's not optimized at all. Of course, our E-Procurement system, which is based on the osbl, has an optimized schema. The "layout" of the db schema should be quite efficient though. All hierarchies are stored with materialized paths (no parent- child relations). Identities are using a segmented model with one-to-one relations.
  30. is using iso-8859-1
    The Russian text displayed as "?".
    All hierarchies are stored with materialized paths (no parent- child relations). Identities are using a segmented model with one-to-one relations.
    Imho this not so good decision. It will be difficult or impossible to you to realize history of changes and high-grade multilanguage support.
  31. The materialized paths contain the ids only, no texts that might be subject to localization. versioning will also work.
  32. Certainly, you define architecture of your appendix. But in my opinion it is short-sighted to pawn essential restrictions at designing. I not so understand, for what purpose to use relational DBMS and intentionally to use not-relational structures. You lose huge advantage relational DBMS - the global control of integrity. The access control, version control, multilanguage support, hierarchies and so forth - is easily and simply realized by all this for relational model. It not criticism, is simple opinion.
  33. There is no restriction. You can model your business objects as you like. You can use all hibernate features and if you want, you can even skip hibernate and use plain jdbc for persistence. You were asking for the efficiency of the database schema and the materialized paths used for the orga hierarchy were just an example. There it makes sense to use this non relational construct, as the orga hierarchy is read quite often and must be optimized for reading.
  34. I do not divide your optimism in occasion of use of any objects. But, probably, the forum not is a correct place for discussion of technical details. Thanks for your answers.
  35. o we have two wingS core developers on our payroll o the OSBL with all its subcomponents (con:cern, con:form, ...) has been developed mainly by wilken employees o we are driving an important open source initiative for the public sector (OSIF) o we are a founder member of the LiSoG o ...