> De: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: martes 11 de diciembre de 2001 20:45
> 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. +1 > 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: > Keep in mind that we are producing right now 2 separate things, a portlets and protlet container spec, and a implementation of that spec, so we should try to implement it in as various frameworks as we can, i know this is very ambitious, and I can sound as dreamer, but that's my opinion..here we go.. ( my votes are only indicative of personal preferences not strong opinions.. but no time to start any of them ) > * Avalon? I do not see that, i know very little of Avalon, my only experience is from Cocoon2 use of Avalon.. > * Cocoon-2 I do like very much that option, and leveraged so many times to started to look at there heavily, and i'm overly fascinated by their community Some time ago Stefano made a proposal of changing the actual agggregation engine done as generator and make a transformer.., we can hook there, making our psml a source of for aggregation, that ideally that a portlet is.. i dont know if there was more than words in that aggregation engine, but i think this a good start point.. What i think fails there is the action processing capability, i need to study a bit how this is done in cocoon2, but i can recall it is very poor compare to turbine.. it seems this will be much improved in Cocoon 2.1..but i dont know how this will end there :), may be they will use scheme and thats are fat words.. :) +1 > * Struts I like struts and i use it in my own projects, but i fail to see JetSpeed as Struts app, i need to restate my study of struts to see how can we implement a portlet container there.. 0 > * Turbine-2 ?�?�?� a next portlet container planned in a past Framework? -1 > * Turbine-3 Well the easy path.., i'm getting used to turbine 2, how big will be the step from 2 to 3.., a complete api change ? +0 > * none We can consider to create our own framewok, but i dont like this way, i think we are producing implementations of portlet containers not frameworks .. -1 > 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. Agreed Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
