Re: Which dojo?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:59:52 -0700 


On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:


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?
Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)
I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also. I think I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much one way or another. 

thanks
david jencks


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

Reply via email to