carlos beltran wrote: > > > Very good explanation ! Do you think you code write this in xdocs ? > > Sure!! > But i dont have commit access. May be someone with access can do it? > Either send it to the jetspeed-dev list or send it directly to me [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'll review and commit it. > > BTW, I'm currently working on integrating Roberto Carrasco velocity work into > > Jetspeed and considering to remove the Cacheable interface from the base > > Portlet interface. > > > > This way only those portlet implementations that want to be Cacheable need to > > implement this feature. > > > > To keep backward compatibility, we could have an AbstractPortlet implementing > > Cacheable and a DynamicAbstractPortlet that would not implement it (I would > > prefer AbstractPortlet and CacheableAbstractPortlet but this may break portlets > > extending AbstractPortlet and relying on the caheable interface methods...) > > > > Would that suit you ? > > Yes, I think it is a good idea. > OK, I'll see if I can integrate that into 1.3a2 without breaking existing code... While I'm testing waters here : Are there users out there who depend on PortletSet, PortletControl and PortletConfig being real classes rather that interfaces (for things like new PortletConfig() or new PortletSet() ) ? If not, I'd like to make these interfaces and provide the existing implementations as BasePortletConfig(), BasePortletSet() and AbstractPortletControl(). That will give us a lot of additionnal flexibility. -- Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
