regarding dependencies. While Pentaho doesn't have the same database manipulation tools that OFBiz has, they don't attempt to mix the shark database with theirs. Would this be a better approach (to leave shark outside of OFBiz's data model)?
--- Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that another task we should consider is > removing the > dependencies to the old "workflow" component; I've > noticed that there > are some fields in the WorkEffort entity that are > related to the > workflow component and there is also some java > classes (in the order and > workeffort components) that use workflow's classes. > > In general, it would be nice for the new Shark > integration (but I don't > know if possible) to avoid this kind of dependencies > and make the work > flow engine an optional/external/pluggable tool. > > Jacopo > > David E Jones wrote: > > > > The best person to address this is Andy as he has > done most of the work > > on Shark to date. > > > > The first thing that needs to be done is to update > to the most recent > > version of Shark. The one Andy wrote against is > not an official release > > and is a couple of years old. > > > > Once that is done it needs to be tested and at > least one PoC application > > of it done, perhaps replacing the old order > authorization workflow that > > now runs on the OFBiz Workflow Engine. > > > > The best way to see what exists and what doesn't > is probably to just run > > it and play around... > > > > -David > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2006, at 9:33 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > >> I've been continuing to look at Pentaho and it > has > >> Shark integrated into it and I'm starting to see > the > >> benefit that it may offer. Over the past two > years > >> I've sporadically seen posts about shark not > being > >> fully implemented, etc. Could someone answer > these > >> two questions... > >> > >> What exactly is encompassed by "fully > implemented"? > >> > >> How much of that is done and what remains? > >
