Jason Dillon wrote:
How modular is the existing console code? I'm thinking that some work
is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing
functionality could be split up into smaller domain-specific modules and
then deployed into the console app. Right now it looks like a big app,
would like to see each of the major bits as a separate module... to help
keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code (which I've already
started to notice when I looked at some Derby and AMQ-related console
bits last).
What is there isn't very modular. We've discussed this before. We need
to make the console architecture a bit more modular so that the console
management components could added as functions that they manage are
added. For example, adding an EJB management portlet with EJB functions
to a minimal Geronimo assembly. The down-side is that there are no
standards here, so it would be Geronimo specific.
How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? I know that J2 now uses
Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1). I'm all for
lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if it
makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins to
plugin/customize their own administration bits.
I think that we need to keep things light-weight for the web console.
We're already catching grief for the footprint.
The other aspect here is that users would like portal capability to
exploit for their purposes and not just for Geronimo administration.
There was some discussion on this in the past too.
For customer use something like Jetspeed2 or Liferay may make more
sense. For an embedded administration console for Geronimo use Pluto
provides the necessary functions with a smaller footprint.
IMO the ideal solution would be:
- Improve the modularity of the console components such that management
could be installed with a function. This is really an orthogonal
discussion but was raised here because Pluto 1.1 provides some necessary
features to make this a reality.
- Continue to ship Geronimo using Pluto (1.1) as the default portal for
our administration console.
- Provide the capability to install/run the console on other Portal
solutions such as JetSpeed2 or Liferay if deployed on Geronimo. I guess
in these situations we could support running two portals (one for
Geronimo and a user Portal) but that eliminates any possible integration
between user portlets and Geronimo admin portlets.
Joe
--jason
On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline
for making the admin console more pluggable. Jetspeed and Liferay are
excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in
their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond
what is needed for the admin console.
David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance
in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very
interesting conversation. He specifically said that pluto 1.1
supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the
admin console pluggable. See:
http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3
That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation
while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more
reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just
needs to do the work. :)
I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much
more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the
console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people
developing portal applications.
I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent
> > would work.
> >
> > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate
>
> I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with
> that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks
> like that might not be a bad thing:
>
> <snip>
> Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are
> embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily
> compatible with Pluto 1.0.x.
>
> Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more
> user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get
> started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your
> portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome
> on the user and developer mailing lists!
>
> </snip>
>
> I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much
> better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues
> with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed
> dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues?
>
> Anyone know?
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
>
