You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> on 2009/12/03 01:31:18 UTC

Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

To summarize the replies in this thread:

#1 Require Java 6: Should be voted on. We voted on it and it was agreed 
to make the change to Java 6.

#2 Remove Cloudscape support: No disagreement on that issue, so no vote 
is necessary. I will work on making that change in the near future.

#3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread not 
started yet.

#4 Include Birt: The only issue is licensing, so no voting is necessary.

Many thanks to David for getting the Java 6 voting thread started!

-Adrian


Adrian Crum wrote:
> Lately there there have been some discussions about making big changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, and then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list about the proposed changes that won the vote.
> 
> In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. About a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think?
> 
> To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of:
> 
> 1. Require Java 6
> 
> 2. Remove Cloudscape support
> 
> 3. Remove the Shark component
> 
> Feel free to add others to the list.
> 
> -Adrian


Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
Jacques and Scott,

Thank you for the clarification. I know I read through all of the 
replies, but I don't know how I missed that.

-Adrian

Scott Gray wrote:
> On 3/12/2009, at 7:44 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> 
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread not 
>>> started yet.
>>
>> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than 
>> simply removing.
>> There OOTB, no compilations, nor Javadoc , directions to use  (they 
>> already exists but should be extracted from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), no 
>> problems for us, visibility for users.
> 
> I've also suggested that I don't think we should remove the component 
> and if people are concerned about having to make sure it compiles then I 
> will do this regularly.
> 
> Regards
> Scott

Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On 3/12/2009, at 7:44 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread  
>> not started yet.
>
> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than  
> simply removing.
> There OOTB, no compilations, nor Javadoc , directions to use  (they  
> already exists but should be extracted from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), no  
> problems for us, visibility for users.

I've also suggested that I don't think we should remove the component  
and if people are concerned about having to make sure it compiles then  
I will do this regularly.

Regards
Scott

Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Thanks Scott,

It's fine with me (I have already prevented also Shark JavaDoc to build, which was my real concern, as I got trapped)

Jacques
()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> To be honest I don't really feel like rewriting all the opinions I've  
> already expressed on this subject but here are the main points:
> 1. I don't think shark should be deprecated/removed
> 2. Shark is already excluded from compilation so I don't see why we  
> need to move it achieve something we already have and it would just  
> make the component more difficult to reactivate.
> 3. In general I don't like the idea of a deprecated directory, either  
> remove something or leave it, I don't think we need an intermediate  
> step.
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> 
> 
> On 10/12/2009, at 11:42 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> 
>> Please Scott,
>>
>> Could you be more explicit, what is the problem of creating a  
>> deprecated directory where no longer used applications will be  
>> freezed (without compilation nor JavaDOc update)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
>> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>>
>>
>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> I do see a problem, please reread the emails I've sent.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2009, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> If nobody see a problem with this approach I will do... some day...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
>>>> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>>>>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting  
>>>>>> thread  not started yet.
>>>>> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than   
>>>>> simply removing. There OOTB, no compilations, nor Javadoc ,  
>>>>> directions to use  (they already exists but should be extracted   
>>>>> from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), no problems for us, visibility for users.
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>


Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
To be honest I don't really feel like rewriting all the opinions I've  
already expressed on this subject but here are the main points:
1. I don't think shark should be deprecated/removed
2. Shark is already excluded from compilation so I don't see why we  
need to move it achieve something we already have and it would just  
make the component more difficult to reactivate.
3. In general I don't like the idea of a deprecated directory, either  
remove something or leave it, I don't think we need an intermediate  
step.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com


On 10/12/2009, at 11:42 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Please Scott,
>
> Could you be more explicit, what is the problem of creating a  
> deprecated directory where no longer used applications will be  
> freezed (without compilation nor JavaDOc update)
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>
>
> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> I do see a problem, please reread the emails I've sent.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 10/12/2009, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> If nobody see a problem with this approach I will do... some day...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
>>> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>>>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting  
>>>>> thread  not started yet.
>>>> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than   
>>>> simply removing. There OOTB, no compilations, nor Javadoc ,  
>>>> directions to use  (they already exists but should be extracted   
>>>> from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), no problems for us, visibility for users.
>>>> Jacques
>>>
>>
>
>


Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Please Scott,

Could you be more explicit, what is the problem of creating a deprecated directory where no longer used applications will be freezed 
(without compilation nor JavaDOc update)

Thanks

Jacques
()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>I do see a problem, please reread the emails I've sent.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 10/12/2009, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> If nobody see a problem with this approach I will do... some day...
>>
>> Jacques
>> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
>> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>>
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread  not started yet.
>>> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than  simply removing. There OOTB, no compilations, nor Javadoc , 
>>> directions to use  (they already exists but should be extracted  from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), no problems for us, visibility for 
>>> users.
>>> Jacques
>>
>
> 



Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I do see a problem, please reread the emails I've sent.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 10/12/2009, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> If nobody see a problem with this approach I will do... some day...
>
> Jacques
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread  
>>> not started yet.
>> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than  
>> simply removing. There OOTB, no compilations, nor Javadoc ,  
>> directions to use  (they already exists but should be extracted  
>> from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), no problems for us, visibility for users.
>> Jacques
>


Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
If nobody see a problem with this approach I will do... some day...

Jacques
()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread not started yet.
> 
> I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than simply removing. 
> 
> There OOTB, 
> no compilations, 
> nor Javadoc , 
> directions to use  (they already exists but should be extracted from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), 
> no problems for us, 
> visibility for users.
> 
> Jacques 
> 
>


Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
> #3 Remove the Shark component: Should be voted on. Voting thread not started yet.

I have suggested to create a deprecated directories instead than simply removing. 

There OOTB, 
no compilations, 
nor Javadoc , 
directions to use  (they already exists but should be extracted from OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES), 
no problems for us, 
visibility for users.

Jacques