On 9/13/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Right now, I'm in the middle of a documentation review. I'm through > Site, and the first part of Core. It's going well. I'm trying to make > sure that the way we explain everything is consistent with the > subproject approach. I'll continue to work on it day-by-day (unless > there's a Falcon's game on!). > > I'm also trying to review the new Chain code, before we ship the first > cut. This would actually be a good time for a full code review, but we > should probably resolve any outstanding patches first. (I don't expect > we have outstanding patches for the new Chain stuff.) > > One question is where do we stand on stand-alone Tiles? Are we > comfortable with bringing that up and making it part of Classic 1.3.0, > or do we want to let things perculate a bit first.
I would suggest *not* doing this at this point. When I stop having to visit three continents in six weeks, I'm going to have time to propose a plan for a pretty radical change to the internal APIs of Standalone Tiles, to make it much more friendly to a portlet environment. I would prefer to do this before any 1.0.0 of standalone Tiles is ever produced, so that we have the freedom to make this sort of adjustments. Note that this won't affect the vast majority of *users* of Tiles unless you are defining your own Controller implementations -- and, for that, it makes sense to provide backwards compatible (but servlet specific) implementations to ease the transition. -Ted. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
