http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Disabling-the-Shark-component-tp173572p173581.html
I hope my comments did not come across the wrong way. I think it is
used/maintained as part of the project or not. Certainly I'm not
more in ofbiz. Of course, if I'm wrong, then we should keep it in by
> David, all,
>
> the shark, and workflow, components are not causing any problems to
> me, but it would be nice, from time to time, to review the existing
> components and try to understand if they are still 'alive' and what
> we can do to improve them etc... (especially the ones with a user
> interface, because are the ones every new user jumps in).
>
> For example, the migration from JPublish to the widgets is now
> complete except for the content and shark applications and I'd
> really love to see that effort finalized as soon as possible; I'm
> wondering if it makes sense to put some effort in converting the
> Shark's pages or not.
>
> To partially address these points I'd propose one of the two options:
>
> a) change the name of the application's tab from "Shark" to
> something that is more generic such as "Workflow"
>
> b) disable the "workflow" and "shark" components (i.e. comment them
> in component-load.xml) and create a new Jira issue that describes
> to current status of these components, what it is needed to run
> them and possible future plans about them
>
> I'd prefer the latter solution but the former one would be enough
> for now.
>
> Does it make sense?
>
> Jacopo
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>>