+1 on "I would like to start a new cvs for Jetspeed-2" As to the framework choices, I do not know enough to form an opinion.
Paul Spencer David Sean Taylor wrote: >>The idea after we have stabilized 1.3a2, we could proceed in two >>separate lines: >> - Go for a 1.3 that is basically as 1.3a2 with bugs removed, better >>security, ... >> - Go for a 2.0 that would use the new portal API specification. For >>this work I would like to have feedback from the IBM team involved in >>Websphere portal server, since they were the original authors (after >>list discussion and feedback) of the proposal. >> > > We can do both. I am more interested in 2.0... > > I would like to start a new cvs for Jetspeed-2, similar to how Turbine now > has Turbine-2 and Turbine-3 repos. Jetspeed-2 would be based on the Portlet > API, and a Portlet Container SPI. > >>From reading the postings on the emails, and from personal experiences, > there is some question as to whether we should continue to base Jetspeed on > the Turbine framework. > I see some basic framework choices available at jakarta: > > * Avalon? > * Cocoon-2 > * Struts > * Turbine-2 > * Turbine-3 > * none > > IMO, we are not leveraging jakarta-commons, and we should be. > When looking to refactor the jetspeed architecture, we should have a good > knowledge of all the apache projects and their capabilities. I will be > spending the next few weeks doing exactly that. > > David > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
