Yep, the current portlet dev is really complicated, but there will be a huge work to do if we decide to switch pluto to other framework like JSF... not sure how much for Pluto2. And I think we don't have enough time for the migration before G2.2 release..
-Rex 2009/7/2 David Jencks <[email protected]> > If we're going to rewrite bits of the portal, we should consider moving to > pluto 2. IIUC there are a bunch of features in portlet 2 spec that may make > our portlets simpler. I also think we should investigate frameworks such as > jsf or even wicket or something because the current portlet code is > ridiculously complicated for what it does. There must be a more sensible > way to write a web app. > thanks > david jencks > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Joseph Leong wrote: > > So unfortunately what happened between Dojo 0.4.3-> Mostly anything newer > especially 1.3.1 is that they had the idea to classify their libraries to > "Dijit" (Widgets) and other subsections. As such, the porting effort is not > small. I believe the debug-views portlets and such still depend on 0.4.3. At > this point in time, my opinion would be to not try and migrate any 0.4.3 > dependent code. There has been so much change between the dojo versions that > it would be probably simpler and cleaner to just rewrite these portlets. I > think it'd be a good choice to get rid of the old Dojo libraries once and > for all as they add a bit to the geronimo footprint size.. not to mention > there are a lot more features in the latest Dojo release that can probably > accomplish what you wanted to in the older versions. > > Thanks, > Joseph Leong > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, David Jencks <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Ivan wrote: >> >> I think the one is what need, no samples and testcases are included. But I >> found 1.3.1 is released, why not use the newest one ? >> >> >> Newer would be better if we can get it to work. I set this up a few days >> ago and forgot the details... I think that I saw some problem and wasn't >> sure what was causing it and tried changing to an earlier dojo version. I >> didn't actually have any reason to think the problem was caused by dojo so >> very likely the more recent release should work. >> >> And for the legacy dojo 0.4.3, how shall we handle it ? Like tomcat, >> maitaine a our own repo ? >> >> >> Ideally I think we would migrate our code to up-to-date dojo. >> Unfortunately I have no idea how hard that would be. Does anyone? If we >> can't, I think there is some release of some 0.4.3 dojo, perhaps we can >> investigate using or repackaging it. >> >> There's also dwr.... but I think working on one dependency at a time will >> be less confusing. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> >> >> 2009/7/1 David Jencks <[email protected]> >> >>> In my attempt to remove our svn repo I found that dojo releases a >>> dojo-war that looks pretty similar to our repacked dojo war. I can make the >>> build work with the substitution but I don't know enough about dojo to know >>> if/what it breaks. Is there anyone who understands our use of dojo well >>> enough to take a look and see if this replacement is plausible? >>> >>> I recall some discussion in the distant past about not including all of >>> dojo... I'm not sure if this is still a concern, but if the released >>> dojo-war works and is too big we can use maven to come up with a smaller >>> war. >>> >>> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4723 for my patch. >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ivan >> >> >> > >
