2009/11/17 Shawn Jiang <[email protected]> > There were some voices on what technology the Geronimo 3.0 will use for its > web admin console. I list them here for discussion: > > > 1, Change to Felix web console infrastructure. > > Felix web console is based on http-service. The developer need to write > servlet and register it as an OSGi service to contribute to the web > console. Karaf is using felix console as its console. You can see [1] for > details on how to extend felix web console. Is writing servlet to replace > current portlets in web console acceptable ? > There is no need to use http services if a web container integrates to osgi framework. IMO, writing servlets to replace currect portlets can be seen as a sort of going backwards..
> > 2, Keep to portlet, but upgrading pluto 1 to pluto 2. > > Pluto 2 supports JSR 286 and is backwards-compatible to JSR 186. If we > upgrade pluto to 2.0, it seems we don't need to change much existing > geronimo web console code. Pluto 2 provide many new JSR 286 features[2] like > publish/subscribe style asynchronous communication between portlets, public > render parameters, portlet filter support, Resource Serving support,.... > > But IIUC, the major benifit to upgrate to pluto 2 is that we can use > Resource Serving to enable a native AJAX support in portlet. I'm not sure > if other new features in pluto 2 can help with our web console for now. > IMO, this might be a better choice because of less time consuming, lower risk.. I think we should spend more time on how to improve our userbility, or find which part of our old codes has a bad code logic/structure and need to improve. But not to try new frameworks and re-writing. > 3, To start the web console over with JSF, wicket[3], or any other > framework. > > A powerful framework can reduce the programing/debug complexity that > exists in current web console infrastructure. But there are risks to > rewrite all the existing page/portlet. We might want to include one of them > little by little by introducing JSF portlet bridge[4], wicket portlet > bridge, or other bridges. > > High risk, more time consuming. -Rex > > Personally, I perfer to upgrade to pluto 2 firstly, then we can see if we > can leverage a framework to reduce the programing complexity. Any thoughts > ? > > > > [1] > http://felix.apache.org/site/extending-the-apache-felix-web-console.html > [2] > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/library/techarticles/0803_hepper/0803_hepper.html > [3] http://wicket.apache.org/ > [4] http://myfaces.apache.org/portlet-bridge/index.html > > > -- > Shawn >
