http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Disabling-the-Shark-component-tp173572p173582.html
The point is that it has little to do with what is happening now. The
> Hi David,
>
> I hope my comments did not come across the wrong way. I think it
> is more like what Jacopo is saying--whether that component is
> actively used/maintained as part of the project or not. Certainly
> I'm not saying that everybody and everything has to be perfect (and
> certainly I am not), but sometimes it sees like there is nobody
> using Shark any more in ofbiz. Of course, if I'm wrong, then we
> should keep it in by all means.
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Si
>
[hidden email]
>
>
>