http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Disabling-the-Shark-component-tp173572p173577.html
can do to improve them etc... (especially the ones with a user
interface, because are the ones every new user jumps in).
sense to put some effort in converting the Shark's pages or not.
b) disable the "workflow" and "shark" components (i.e. comment them in
I'd prefer the latter solution but the former one would be enough for now.
>
> Si,
>
> Your comments seem to go quite a bit beyond the concern about it not
> working 100%. If that was a requirement for functionality in OFBiz we
> should really cull quite a lot from the project...
>
> If something is not working 100% (and the Shark stuff IS working, just
> not all of it, and it certainly needs to be updated to use a newer and
> really released version of Shark), and there is no one working on it,
> and it is causing problems, then we should leave it disabled by default
> (which I think it is what Jacopo was proposing), not remove it from the
> project.
>
> The specialized directory is really meant for other things, namely
> application level pieces that are for a specialized and not generic
> purpose. Of course, some application like the OTS stuff that started
> that way haven't stayed that way, but that was really the point of it.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I think the concern that I have is that the Shark component really
>> doesn't work, there's doesn't seem to be any effort to get it to work
>> right now, and the SECAs do a great job of supporting real work flow.
>> If it worked, of course it's better to have a workflow engine than
>> not, but will that be the case at any foreseeable point in the
>> future? Might it be better to have it in specialized/ until somebody
>> can get it to work again?
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It really isn't correct to say that the license is incompatible, only
>>> that we can't distribute the jar files because of the license.
>>>
>>> If we decide on this, we should decide based on goals for the
>>> framework. Right now nothing outside of the shark component uses
>>> Shark, so disabling it would be fine, but if we want to use workflow
>>> in the future in OFBiz it isn't going to be based on the OFBiz
>>> workflow engine (unless someone has a few thousand hours I don't know
>>> about that they want to invest in this...).
>>>
>>> So, do I understand from this that the direction we want to go is to
>>> just not have a workflow engine in OFBiz?
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd rather see the OFBiz workflow component go before the
>>> Shark component, though it would certainly be nice if there was
>>> another alternative with a friendlier license. Or perhaps the Shark
>>> community would consider a change to the Apache license, or if they
>>> still like the copy-left style stuff for code changes, then perhaps
>>> the Mozilla license?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree. How about we just move into that specialized/ SVN that
>>>> David has? Even if it worked, it still wouldn't make sense to have
>>>> it in the ASF SVN because the actual Shark is not license compatible.
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What about disabling the Shark component?
>>>>> It is a component that has never been completed, we have moved
>>>>> outside of OFBiz the Shark jars (for license issues) and its user
>>>>> interface is clearly not maintained updated with the rest of the
>>>>> project: the Shark component is the only component, together with
>>>>> the Content component :-( that still hosts JPublish pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Si
>>>>
[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Si
>>
[hidden email]
>>
>>
>>