Hey David, I'm starting to take a look at it today.
They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the patch to use it? Jay David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Rex Wang wrote: > >> 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.. > > I agree. But we need to fix the private repo issue now..... is anyone > looking at my patch or my patch updated to the latest dojo release? > Since I don't see problems I'm tempted to apply it. Then we can try to > figure out something for the 0.4.3 legacy dojo. > > thanks > david jencks > >> >> -Rex >> >> 2009/7/2 David Jencks <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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 >>> >>> >> >> >
