From: Binny G. <bin...@gm...> - 2011-07-01 04:50:36
|
Are we concentrating too much on technical improvements while not paying adequate attention to new/improved features? Technical improvements without any visible improvement to end-users - may cause users to consider moving away from Mifos. I would like releases to be a mix of new/improved functional features + a bunch of technical improvements. I have had the chance to get a glimpse into some of our competition and very soon our feature set is going to be insufficient, which is heartbreaking .. On technical improvements: - would be good to include testing/handling of larger volumes - I have had a couple of enquiries from large MFI's - one of them has 4+ million members - on i18n, would be good to allow overriding of specific internationalized labels look up from config folders - so that they do not get overwritten by any upgrades. And also handle date formats consistently, especially in reports. Thanks Binny On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Van Mittal-Henkle < va...@gr...> wrote: > George, > > I'm catching up on some of these threads after being out for a few days > > > - there's a mobile revolution underway in sub-Saharan Africa; building > > both the APIs/hooks for connecting into a variety of mobile systems > > (from mobile money to mobile interfaces for clients and MFI staff to > > exchange of info with other systems that are running mobile apps) and > > also potentially getting a few sample/reference mobile apps running on > > Mifos (need to vet specific pain points so we don't build something > > just for the sake of building it) > > If Mifos provided Restful or WSDL based APIs it would open up lots of > possibilities for building on Mifos for things like this. Having stable > APIs for people to build on is one of the things we have been working > towards for some time. A lot of KeithW's efforts in particular have > been around getting internals to a state where we could start layering > an API on them. As mentioned, getting specific customers with specific > use cases to drive this is key. > > > also for you and the other engineers who have worked on MIfos: in a > > community model if there's less oversight, is there under-the-covers > > work that should be prioritized which will help keep Mifos stable and > > scalable as it goes forward in the community? > > Here's where some big questions come up. > > One hypothesis is that there are two classes of Mifos users-- Class 1: > larger MFIs who have a need for various extensions and customizations of > Mifos and who can take on some expense to do that and even host their > own infrastructure and Class 2: smaller MFIs who could likely manage > with fewer features and less extensibility and who would benefit most > from low cost hosted access to Mifos. > > How to most effectively meet the needs of both users is tricky. > > We've been challenged by the current code base being difficult and > expensive to extend and maintain. We have made progress in improving > the code and certain areas of it are much easier to deal with now. > However, there is still a large amount of code left that needs > improvement. > > The most cost effective way to deliver a solution that can be > effectively hosted at very low cost (supporting multi-tenancy for > example) at this point looks like a rewrite that would pull in reusable > parts of Mifos but redo the basics from the ground up to get things like > multi-tenancy, transaction management, auditing, clean i18n, layered > architecture, separation of concerns and manageable tests in place. To > keep the cost of doing a rewrite low, it would help for the target > release to have fewer features and options than Mifos currently does. > > On the other hand, supporting larger existing and new MFIs and those > requiring the larger feature set currently supported by Mifos would > benefit from the current code base being extended and refined. The > difficulty here is that the cost to continue maintaining the current > code is high as is the cost to refactor and improve it. > > Keith and I are in agreement on the things that he already laid out > here: > http://mifosforge.jira.com/wiki/display/MIFOS/Technical+Roadmap+%28Post+ > Maya+G+and+onwards%29<http://mifosforge.jira.com/wiki/display/MIFOS/Technical+Roadmap+%28Post+%0AMaya+G+and+onwards%29> > > This is a good list of how the current code base could be moved forward. > > > Replacing the current Struts/JSP based UI code with Spring/Freemarker is > the biggest single enabler for lowering the cost of maintaining and > extending Mifos. It leads to: > * API creation across the application (by achieving complete separation > of business logic from presentation code) > * simplified transaction management > * simplified i18n > * improvement of layered architecture > * reduction and simplification of test code > > --Van > > > |