BTW, the original idea was from my whole team here at work not just me. Thanks to Harvinder Kalsi, Shan Gopalakrishnan, Jason Kary, Shiraz Kanga, and Jaydeep Maranthe among others, I just got the pleasure of implementing it.
-tk
At 06:52 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, Weaver, Scott wrote:
Todd,
The last thing I wanted was for you to feel out of the loop.
> I'm happy to have someone else implement this idea or totally reject it > for > that matter, but can we please at least keep it under the same bug id and > have a clearly stated reason to implement it differently than my > proposal?
I really liked your implementation that is why I scrapped what I was working on in favor of yours. There was/is no move from your original proposal, it's just been expanded ;) What I did was use your original source code as the basis for rewriting the Jsp and Velocity portlet/action implementations. I would like to eventually deprecate these two paradigms and use the MVC portlet/action as a standard for all template-based portlets. However, to ease the transition, I thought it best to first implement the MVC through the current mechanisms. It also helps synchronize bug fixes/enhancements for both Jsp and Velocity implementations since they both use the MVC directly and do very little if nothing on their own.
> but can we please at least keep it under the same bug id and
I don't care which bug id it goes to. It could be a completely new one. It really doesn't matter to me as long as we can get the code tested and implemented as soon as possible.
-scott
> -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Kuebler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:23 PM > To: Jetspeed Developers List > Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 17747] - [ENHANCEMENT] Portlet processors > > I'm happy to have someone else implement this idea or totally reject it > for > that matter, but can we please at least keep it under the same bug id and > have a clearly stated reason to implement it differently than my > proposal? I certainly welcome suggestions, other ideas and differences of > opinions, but I was under the impression that open source was a > collaborative effort. What am I missing here? > > > %regards -tk > > > At 08:13 PM 3/7/2003 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG > >RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > ><http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17747>. > >ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND > >INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > > >http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17747 > > > >[ENHANCEMENT] Portlet processors > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > AssignedTo|jetspeed- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > Target Milestone|1.4b2 |1.4b4 > > > > > > > >------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-07 20:13 -- > ----- > >Todd and Scott, > > > >Good work! I'll take it for a test drive when I get a chance. I propose > >that we > >mark one of the two bugs as duplicate and close it. The only thing that I > >would > >ask of Todd is to include the Apache license in the sources and run them > thru > >our style checker before I commit it initially. > > > >Also, it would be nice to integrate Todd's documentation into Jetspeed > docs. > > > >Finally, I'd like the other comitters to have chance to review. > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
