Sounds good. It was the direction I was heading with my iframe portlet, but was bogged down with work and working on skinned tabs. I think it would be nice to maintain the user's option of iframing the content from a url without hacing to go through an Html portlet.
I'd love another 8 hours in the day, but with just getting married, and ten hours for work each day, time is short. Should be more available now though, which is good. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Sean Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jetspeed Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:54 PM Subject: RE: Jetspeed Proposal: iframe portlet control > Good proposal. > > I think that this overall feature should be supported throughout the > project, and not only with iframes, and with different media types. > > I like the idea of randomly accessing content, whether it's a portlet, a > portlet with its control, or a collection of portlets. In order for this > to work, we need to have unique ids support. Paul and I have been > discussing this for a while now, and he just committed the start of the > portlet id implementation. Its not complete. We still need to work out: > > - a conversion utility to take existing psml files and ensure that a > unique id is added to each and every 'entry' and 'portlets' element. > - modify psml.xsd to mandate an id entry for 'portlets' and 'entry' > change: > <attribute name="id" type="string" minOccurs="1"/> > to: > <attribute name="id" type="string" use="required"/> > - a unique value generator (Turbine's has been deprecated) > - deprecate all pane and portlet references, and replace them with a new > portlet/portletset reference mechanism, integrating with tools (jlink) > > Think about making the portlet id required. It means that old psml files > will be incompatible until converted. > > I agree with Santiago, that we should all agree on a common naming > convention. I like 'Content' better than 'Clear'...what about > 'PortletElement'? > > The default content, an entire portal page is addressed by > /jetspeed/portal. > It gets the default layout/template. > > What about "/template/PortalElement/peid/42" where > peid - represents portal element id (see above) > PEID can represent either a portlet entry or portlet set. > > Then JetspeedTool would have a 'getPortalElement' method etc. > Anyway, that's my vote on the naming. > > My vote is +1 on this, as long as we make sure it supports other media > types and constructs as well as IFrames. > > Im now going to look into continuing what Paul started on using unique > ids across the system. > > > > 4.1 Decisions > > > > Do we want this in Jetspeed? > > +1 > > > > > Are there improvements to these details that better fit the > > jetspeed code and intentions? > > See above. > > > > > Do we want a single portlet control, or updates to them all? > > I like the optional "iframe" attribute on all controls. > This gives the most flexibility. > > > > > How are we going to identify a portlet within a portal page? > > See above. > > > What code will support forming this id and finding? > > We're still working that out. > > > > > How to change the customizers to support portlet control choice? > > Do you mean the 'Iframe' option? Not sure if I understand this question. > > > > > Should we surface more iframe control to the user, such as height? > > Yes. Perhaps a more detailed design of Iframe customization would help. > > > > > Should we make the iframe parameters different (bigger > > height) when the portlet is maximized? > > Perhaps a more detailed design of Iframe customization would help. > > 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]>
