+0 #2
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
+1 #2
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
So what alan is point out is I just suggested we add one more
feature. I agree that this is another feature, so what do we want to
do? I think we have three choices:
1) My idea below, isolate the broken porlets to an "experimental"
section
2) Just remove the broken portlets
3) Fix the broken portlets
I'm +1 on option 1 or 2. I don't care which option we choose.
-dain
On May 23, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
/me mumbles something about roses...
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
How about we create an "experimental" section of the console menu,
that only displays if you click the "show experimental" link (I'd
guess it can all be done with java script on the browser side). I
remember for 1.0 we removed a lot of portlets, but I think it would
be ok to include most of them as long as we set the expectation
that they are not finished works.
-dain
On May 22, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Here are the things that I still want to squeeze into 1.1:
- fix console JMS to accept new providers at runtime
- fix console security realms to accept new providers at runtime
- add a missing Geronimo security provider to console security realms
- fix hot deploy dir so it notices files updated while the server was
down and deletes files if they are undeployed some other way
There are also AFAIK a number of not-yet-applied patches to review.
Thanks,
Aaron
