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=17756>. 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=17756 MVCPortlet Proposal ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-11 14:02 ------- Todd, I think we need to make it clear that people should stop using the Jsp/Velocity portlet stuff and try to move to the MVC model. However, I disagree with suggesting to developers that you shouldn't subclass GenericMVCPortlet. Reason being is that I have subclassed VelocityPortlet in the past to add additional functionality to the base class. Obiviously, we subclassed for backward compatibility and to make the existing model easier to maintain, but others may want to subclass for a myriad of different reasons, I don't think telling them their wrong is a good approach. These are only my opinions, and invite you to convince my otherwise. You may be able show me something I did not originally consider;) > Could we make the same backward compatability available > through registry entries rather than subclassing? What do you think? I prefer not to require any modifications to the registry. I don't want to take the chance of breaking someone's current implementation. If it was something less invasive, I would consider it. However, the portlet classes are the "bread and butter" of the end-user, and I don't want to mess with that, at least not now ;) I would still like to here what the proposed change to the registry would have been. -scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
