Hi Jade,
I'm back from vacation (great, Cuba!) and I'm preparing a plan for porting the Project/Open version of the "Intranet" module.
I've checked for your project manager code. Until now I haven't seen any duplicated code, so that seems to be good news. My comments:
- I see that you are using separate tables for status and type information (pm_project_status and pm_task_dependency_types) instead of using the "categories" table as PhilG used to do it in the old Intranet. This (the separate tables) is the way I used to learn RDMBS design, but I got used to "categories" because it allows to keep code considerably shorter. So I wonder whether categories got deprecated in OpenACS or whether there are other reasons to abandon this habit.
- I see that you have created separate tables for "processes". So I wonder whether this it more efficient
then for example using the pm_project* tables with a special "prototype" type of project.
Jade Rubick wrote on Sep 18 2003
<blockquote> I'm happy to share my upgrade scripts, however.
It would save you a great deal of time, probably.
</blockquote>
I think the time has come where we would definitely apreciate this offer...
Jade Rubick wrote on Sep 18 2003
<blockquote> I'd also be interested in talking about merging our
efforts. Rather than have two project-manager programs
for OpenACS, I'd be much happier to join our efforts
together
</blockquote>
During the next two weeks we are going to define how exactly we want to proceed with the porting effort in terms of modularization, localization, permissions, security, OO and component architecture, testing, etc. I would love to involve the community in this processes, so I'm going keep you informed and I'm looking forward to fruitful discussion...
Jade Rubick wrote on Sep 18 2003
<blockquote> I should warn you that the migration to OpenACS is not
easy. [...] Part of the problem is that equivalent
applications sometimes just don't exists on the OpenACS
end of things, and when they do, sometimes their data
model isn't very similar.
</blockquote>
I think that P/O is in a very different position wrt. to "equivalent applications", because we have eliminated all of them from P/O. We even have rewritten the bboard and the admin pages. So I hope porting (phase 1: quick & dirty) is going to pretty straight-forward. However, this may pose questions considering "merging the efforts". We'll try to publish sample code ASAP, so that you can decide whether merging makes sense. We are going to publish the ported code of the old Intranet module (the P/O "core" module) as GPL, obviously.
I'll try to join you on IRC during the next days.
Bests,
Frank
mailto:fraber@project-open.com, http://www.project-open.com/
