> You still want to keep the PersistenceService interface as is correct?
Im not tied to it at all. The interface looks overly complicated with the inner Page interface Please write a new interface if you think its necessary. I would rewrite it as a Turbine service, like every other service in Jetspeed (except this one) > I will start looking at gutting/rewriting the service. Great! > -----Original Message----- > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:49 AM > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior > > > You still want to keep the PersistenceService interface as is correct? > > One the first suggestion I have would be to replace all the > instance of Vector with ArrayList, to improve performance. > They did this with Torque and supposedly it garnered them a > nice increase in performance. The only issue I see with this > would be if you are betting on those Lists to be threadsafe. > > I will start looking at gutting/rewriting the service. > > Scott > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:29 PM > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior > > > > I wouldn't mind if you rewrote the whole class and threw away the > > existing. That is what I was planning on doing. I think > > JetspeedPersistenceService is pretty bad > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:29 AM > > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > > > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response, David. I am VERY interested in > getting it > > > work. I'm currently looking at the PersistenceService and > its inner > > > class, PersistenceService.Page, right now. Let me now if > I'm on the > > > right track and I will continue to work on it. Hopefully, I > > > will be able to come up with a suitable patch. > > > > > > I welcome any pointers you may have. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Scott > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:11 PM > > > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > > > > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior > > > > > > > > The JetspeedPersistenceService still needs to be updated to > > > > support portlet instances. It doesn't consider portlet ids > > > > (instances) or non-default pages. Its high on my todo > list, unless > > > > someone > > > else fixes > > > > it first... > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:57 AM > > > > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > > > > > Subject: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have noticed some "odd" behavior when it comes to multiple > > > > > instance of the same portlet. > > > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > > > Let's say I have a portlet, "MyPortlet", which extends > > > > > VelocityPortlet. It has a single attribute called > "test." Now, > > > > > I add this portlet to 2 separate panes, pane_1 and > pane_2. My > > > > > PSML file reflects that MyPortlet is in fact in both pane_1 > > > and pane_2, > > > > > each instance of MyPortlet has a unique ID value. So far so > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > Now, this is the part that does not seem right, to me at > > > least. If > > > > > I have an action that sets the value of the attribute "test", > > > > > regardless of which instance of MyPortlet calls the > > > action the value > > > > > is both stored and retrieved from the first (as it appears in > > > > > the PSML file) instance of MyPortlet in pane_1. The second > > > instance of > > > > > MyPortlet in pane_2 never gets or sets its own attribute > > > "test", and > > > > > it always refers to the attribute "test" in the first > instance > > > > > of MyPortlet. > > > > > > > > > > Before I dig any deeper I need to ask, "Is this correct > > > behavior for > > > > > multiple instances of the same portlet?" > > > > > > > > > > I'm using the most current CVS HEAD for 1.3a3. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
