2009/4/21 Scott O'Bryan <[email protected]> > Yes I agree Matthias. Anyone else have a contrary opinion?
I agree as well. > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Scott O'Bryan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> I completed a migration to Trinidad to allow it to work with either >>> Portlet >>> 1.0 or Portlet 2.0. Portlet 2.0 containers will support AJAX. >>> >>> So here is my problem. In order to support extra functionality of >>> Portlet >>> 2.0, I need to compile against a Portlet 2.0 container. Most of the code >>> does a graceful fallback at runtime, but Trinidad has a number of custom >>> wrapper objects that we were using for Portlet 1.0 which implement the >>> Portlet Request/Response objects. Portlet 2.0 extends these objects and >>> on >>> some methods returns a ResourceURL which is a class that didn't exist in >>> Portlet 1.0. >>> >>> To make a long story short, in order for us to support both Portal >>> containers we'll need these wrappers to be compiled using Portlet 1.0 >>> while >>> the rest of the code in Trinidad needs to be compiled using Portlet 2.0. >>> >>> As such I think we have several options for handling this: >>> >>> 1. Force someone to add an extra jar as a "portlet compatibility layer". >>> We >>> would have 1 jar for portlet 1.0 compatibility and another for portlet >>> 2.0 >>> compatibility. Then, you just include the proper portlet compatibility >>> jar >>> and you're off. >>> >>> 2. We could support portlet 2.0 out of the box and force portlet 1.0 >>> compatibility to use a special jar. This would mean that only 1.0 >>> containers would need the extra jar to be added to their web-inf.lib. >>> >>> >> >> Portlet 2.0 is the "latest, greatest" portlet technology, so I am in fav >> of this. If one wants (or has) to use older technology, adding an >> extra jar to the web-inf/lib is not the end of the world. >> >> >> >>> It is a LOT harder to support portlet 1.0 by default and add a jar for >>> portlet 2.0 because of the way the architecture works. Possible, but >>> hard. >>> >>> Please let me know if either of these options sounds acceptable for >>> Trinidad... >>> >>> >> >> Option 2) sounds like a good one. >> I guess that's what you prefer as well, right ? >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >
