A few weeks back we had a discussion about how we should deal with the
Portal framework (and the portlet container) that is included in the web
console contribution.
At the time, here were some of the comments:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
So I took a look at the web console. There are two main changes I'd like
to make before we "go live" with it.
1) Combine the "framework" and "standard" web apps into one. Currently
the "framework" holds the Pluto engine and page framing and so on,
while the "standard" holds all the actual portlets. Some of the issues
are that I don't really fancy taking two contexts for this, there's no
security on the portlet (standard) context, it can be accessed directly
with a variety of unpleasant side effects, it makes the whole thing
require multiple build modules and an EAR, etc.
<snip>
I responded with:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Joe Bohn wrote:
Regarding #1 below ... I think there are probably some good reasons to
keep this split into 2 or maybe even more web applications.
As you mention, the "framework" appears to hold the necessary components
for the console framework itself. Since this may be replaced
at some point in the future by an open source Portal Server (not just
the container) it probably makes sense to keep this split apart.
The "standard" application includes the portlets necessary for console
administration. One of the benefits of the portlet model (and I
suspect the reason it was chosen for the console) is that it is
extensible. Multiple applications can be installed as necessary. This
seems
like it would be a desirable feature for a modular server like
Geronimo. If there is no need for the EJB container it need not be
included in the resultant image and therefore the portlets that
administer the EJB container would not be deployed into the solution.
I wasn't one of the authors of this console structure but I can see how
it makes sense in the big picture even it is seems like overkill for now.
<snip>
to which Aaron added:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Maybe the real answer to #1 is to actually integrate Pluto into
Geronimo -- you know, so if you deploy a web app with portlet deployment
descriptors then a PortletDeployer GBean "magically" wires it up and makes
it available to Pluto, and then some other admin web site lets you arrange
your portlets on the page... Gosh, this is sounding like a bigger effort
already. I guess it would be a portal server module for Geronimo, as
opposed to the current "static" Pluto configuration.
Now that I've caught you all up on the discussion .... I was wondering
if we can figure out what we are doing with the portlet container and
portal framework for the console contribution. Since the container will
most like be included as an optional element with Geronimo (even without
the console) I think that raises the question of what should we do about
a Portal framework around that container. What does this mean to the
user? If the portlet container is integrated directly into Geronimo it
will be visible to the user (actually, the user will know it's there
when he sees the console anyway). Can a user deploy portlets into this
container? If so, how are the portlets accessed (one at a time via
URL?) and/or should we provide some type of generic Portal framework
capabilities that include aggregation, navigation, persistence, etc....?
I know these are muddy waters, but I think the questions will come from
the users as soon as we include the portlet container for the web console.
We're not trying to compete/clash with JetSpeed but at the same time it
appears that what they are creating is a bit too heavy weight for the
web console needs alone. However, it might be just fine if the user
wants to directly exploit the portal capabilities. With this in mind
should we be looking to update the Web Console so that it can run either
with the static Portal included as part of the console contribution or
full JetSpeed depending upon the GBean configuration (assuming we
include JetSpeed as an option)? Maybe I'm moving too fast here .... I
guess the first question is are we planning to integrate Pluto directly
into Geronimo or are we treating it as part of the Web Console
contribution for now? If it's just part of the Web Console I guess we
can declare that it's off-limits to the user (of course, with open
source I guess they can really do anything they want to do :-) ).
-Joe
--
Joe Bohn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
