Framework cleaning an enhancing : Shark and LDAP

[Jacques Le Roux]

Despite of the efforts I put in it 2 years ago, I'm wondering if we should not throw away Shark. It's not supported anymore and
there are any real use of it in OFBiz since ECA are used instead. It looks really like a dead end.
LDAP is proposed as a specialpurpose applications in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689. But I see it more like a core
framework feature even if there is no real use of it in OFBiz for now.

WDYT ?

Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

Nobody interested of does this mean that I can go ahead ?
Ahead : remove Shark, install LDAP as a framework component

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> Despite of the efforts I put in it 2 years ago, I'm wondering if we should not throw away Shark. It's not supported anymore and
> there are any real use of it in OFBiz since ECA are used instead. It looks really like a dead end.
> LDAP is proposed as a specialpurpose applications in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689. But I see it more like a
> core framework feature even if there is no real use of it in OFBiz for now.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Jacques

[BJ Freeman]

You will know as soon as you create a Jira :P
I think seeing work flow in graphics is a good task
I saw your query on ULM and was wonder if you were going to try to map
it to do what shark does.
Being  LGPL license dose make make it hard if it is not gong to be
supported.

Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/6/2008 11:30 AM:

> Nobody interested of does this mean that I can go ahead ?
> Ahead : remove Shark, install LDAP as a framework component
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> Despite of the efforts I put in it 2 years ago, I'm wondering if we
>> should not throw away Shark. It's not supported anymore and there are
>> any real use of it in OFBiz since ECA are used instead. It looks
>> really like a dead end.
>> LDAP is proposed as a specialpurpose applications in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689. But I see it more
>> like a core framework feature even if there is no real use of it in
>> OFBiz for now.
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Jacques
>
>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "BJ Freeman" <[hidden email]>
> You will know as soon as you create a Jira :P
> I think seeing work flow in graphics is a good task
> I saw your query on ULM and was wonder if you were going to try to map
> it to do what shark does.
> Being  LGPL license dose make make it hard if it is not gong to be
> supported.

Actually it was only a link I thought may be useful, at least as reference.
Shark seems now useless in OFBiz. And as we are supposed to clean the framework...
Also I saw some requests about LDAP these last times, hence my questions.

Jacques

> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/6/2008 11:30 AM:
>> Nobody interested of does this mean that I can go ahead ?
>> Ahead : remove Shark, install LDAP as a framework component
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> Despite of the efforts I put in it 2 years ago, I'm wondering if we
>>> should not throw away Shark. It's not supported anymore and there are
>>> any real use of it in OFBiz since ECA are used instead. It looks
>>> really like a dead end.
>>> LDAP is proposed as a specialpurpose applications in
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689. But I see it more
>>> like a core framework feature even if there is no real use of it in
>>> OFBiz for now.
>>>
>>> WDYT ?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[David E Jones]

No, do not remove the shark component. That isn't a commit-then-review  
sort of thing, and in fact I'd say we should have a vote in order to  
decide to remove it or not.

As for the LDAP component... could you be more specific? I'm not aware  
of any separate component for LDAP, and really it should be integrated  
with the existing security component(s).

-David


On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Nobody interested of does this mean that I can go ahead ?
> Ahead : remove Shark, install LDAP as a framework component
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> Despite of the efforts I put in it 2 years ago, I'm wondering if we  
>> should not throw away Shark. It's not supported anymore and there  
>> are any real use of it in OFBiz since ECA are used instead. It  
>> looks really like a dead end.
>> LDAP is proposed as a specialpurpose applications in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689 
>> . But I see it more like a core framework feature even if there is  
>> no real use of it in OFBiz for now.
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Jacques
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> No, do not remove the shark component. That isn't a commit-then-review  
> sort of thing, and in fact I'd say we should have a vote in order to  
> decide to remove it or not.

OK, I personnlly don't need a vote. If you think we should keep it, it's fine with me.
 
> As for the LDAP component... could you be more specific?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689

>I'm not aware  
> of any separate component for LDAP, and really it should be integrated  
> with the existing security component(s).

Thanks for comment

Jacques

> -David
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Nobody interested of does this mean that I can go ahead ?
>> Ahead : remove Shark, install LDAP as a framework component
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> Despite of the efforts I put in it 2 years ago, I'm wondering if we  
>>> should not throw away Shark. It's not supported anymore and there  
>>> are any real use of it in OFBiz since ECA are used instead. It  
>>> looks really like a dead end.
>>> LDAP is proposed as a specialpurpose applications in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1689 
>>> . But I see it more like a core framework feature even if there is  
>>> no real use of it in OFBiz for now.
>>>
>>> WDYT ?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
>

[David E Jones]

On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> No, do not remove the shark component. That isn't a commit-then-
>> review  sort of thing, and in fact I'd say we should have a vote in  
>> order to  decide to remove it or not.
>
> OK, I personnlly don't need a vote. If you think we should keep it,  
> it's fine with me.

The point is the neither you nor I are the OFBiz community, and others  
in the community may be using or may want to use it in the future and  
have plans for it even if thy don't have the luxury of the time  
necessary to act on them right now.

In other words, what one person thinks only matters a little bit  
because there are many other people involved.

-David

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>>> No, do not remove the shark component. That isn't a commit-then-
>>> review  sort of thing, and in fact I'd say we should have a vote in  
>>> order to  decide to remove it or not.
>>
>> OK, I personnlly don't need a vote. If you think we should keep it,  
>> it's fine with me.
>
> The point is the neither you nor I are the OFBiz community, and others  
> in the community may be using or may want to use it in the future and  
> have plans for it even if thy don't have the luxury of the time  
> necessary to act on them right now.
>
> In other words, what one person thinks only matters a little bit  
> because there are many other people involved.

Yes, but nobody but you replied so if we don't remove Shark I think it's ok.
About LDAP ?

Jacques
 
> -David
>

[Shi Yusen]

Jacques,

I think keeping Shark will let the users upgrade from some old version
safely and easily. Besides, workflow is a key point for some users to
consider OFBiz.

On the LDAP component with SSO, I think it'll be better to wait more
feedbacks on it especially the author(s) of check509CertLogin and
checkRequestHeaderLogin. When I saw these code, I think they must have
been required by some commercial SSO environments, such as IBM Tivolli
Access Manager?

Regards,

Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.


在 2008-09-07日的 06:09 +0200，Jacques Le Roux写道：

> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> > On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >
> >> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> >>> No, do not remove the shark component. That isn't a commit-then-
> >>> review  sort of thing, and in fact I'd say we should have a vote in  
> >>> order to  decide to remove it or not.
> >>
> >> OK, I personnlly don't need a vote. If you think we should keep it,  
> >> it's fine with me.
> >
> > The point is the neither you nor I are the OFBiz community, and others  
> > in the community may be using or may want to use it in the future and  
> > have plans for it even if thy don't have the luxury of the time  
> > necessary to act on them right now.
> >
> > In other words, what one person thinks only matters a little bit  
> > because there are many other people involved.
>
> Yes, but nobody but you replied so if we don't remove Shark I think it's ok.
> About LDAP ?
>
> Jacques
>  
> > -David
> >

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Shi Yusen" <[hidden email]>
> Jacques,
>
> I think keeping Shark will let the users upgrade from some old version
> safely and easily. Besides, workflow is a key point for some users to
> consider OFBiz.

Yes sure.

> On the LDAP component with SSO, I think it'll be better to wait more
> feedbacks on it especially the author(s) of check509CertLogin and
> checkRequestHeaderLogin. When I saw these code, I think they must have
> been required by some commercial SSO environments, such as IBM Tivolli
> Access Manager?

OK, I will take it easy and will install in specialpurpose as you suggested

Thanks

Jacques

> Regards,
>
> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>
>
> 在 2008-09-07日的 06:09 +0200，Jacques Le Roux写道：
>> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> > On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> >>> No, do not remove the shark component. That isn't a commit-then-
>> >>> review  sort of thing, and in fact I'd say we should have a vote in
>> >>> order to  decide to remove it or not.
>> >>
>> >> OK, I personnlly don't need a vote. If you think we should keep it,
>> >> it's fine with me.
>> >
>> > The point is the neither you nor I are the OFBiz community, and others
>> > in the community may be using or may want to use it in the future and
>> > have plans for it even if thy don't have the luxury of the time
>> > necessary to act on them right now.
>> >
>> > In other words, what one person thinks only matters a little bit
>> > because there are many other people involved.
>>
>> Yes, but nobody but you replied so if we don't remove Shark I think it's ok.
>> About LDAP ?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> > -David
>> >
>