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=21294>. 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=21294 Event Model proposal Summary: Event Model proposal Product: Jetspeed Version: 1.4b5-dev / CVS Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: Other Component: Miscellaneous AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Find attached a UML diagram of my 'first pass' at adding event handling to Jetspeed. The colors are for visual clarity and only roughly based on the design archetypes they represent in the Coad/Lefebvre/DeLuca UML color extensions and domain-neutral component pattern. Don't get hung up on that semantic hook, the diagram is simple and should be self explanatory. It is also basically decoupled from turbine service, only uses it for this implementation. The differences I identified between awt event model and the problem we are trying to solve is that in awt it is an interactive, fully encapsulated environment. The request/response driven http transaction needs some layer of abstraction which I called scope to identify the different parts of the server/client interaction that might need events triggered. This scope idea roughly replaces the component idea of awt. I think I picked the right scope points, but there probably needs to be some discussion around that as well. There is a potential conflict between portlet set scope (maps to pane/page) and portlet group (similar portlets) scope which need to also be further explored. %regards -tk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
