> I like the idea, however (or in addition) as time pasts (with Jetspeed 2) > I think the Jetspeed CVS will be able to be more portlet container > oriented > and select a core set of portlets for the main distribution. I imagine it > would concentrate on the services to provide to portlets, and the > administration of portlets, layouts, users, etc.
That's right on the money. We are keeping the core of Jetspeed 2 as lightweight as possible. > Of course, having them in CVS would help facilitate better collaboration, > community bug tracking, fixing, and all the great advantages of > open-source`dom. So perhaps no download url, nor license, but rather a > "unsupported" branch of the CVS as mentioned. I like the idea of a community portlets repo also, always have. However this almost requires something separate from Apache entirely as to relieve licensing issues and CVS access concerns. Can you say PortletForge.net ;) *===================================* * Scott T Weaver������������������� * * Jakarta Jetspeed Portal Project�� * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *===================================* � > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:15 PM > To: Jetspeed Developers List > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Contributed portlets page > > I like the idea, however (or in addition) as time pasts (with Jetspeed 2) > I think the Jetspeed CVS will be able to be more portlet container > oriented > and select a core set of portlets for the main distribution. I imagine it > would concentrate on the services to provide to portlets, and the > administration of portlets, layouts, users, etc. > Portlet application "war's" could be separate from the portal server > repository. > In that situation the portlet contributor could mark their portlet's as > version 2.xx compatible, etc. > > For example, if 5 people wanted to contribute different versions of a > StockTicker portlet they could perhaps submit it to the "catalog" with: > Title: title > Description: description > Provider: name > Compatible: J2.xx, J2.yx > Download URL: > License: > etc... > > Of course, having them in CVS would help facilitate better collaboration, > community bug tracking, fixing, and all the great advantages of > open-source`dom. So perhaps no download url, nor license, but rather a > "unsupported" branch of the CVS as mentioned. > > Am I jumping too far into the future... probably. > But IMHO Mark's suggestion moves towards that path; > ? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Orciuch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:08 PM > To: Jetspeed Developers List > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Contributed portlets page > > > > > When you say "contributed portlets", it makes me think that they are > > contributed to the Jetspeed CVS. > > Shouldn't the portlet documentation go in the Portlet Catalog? > > They are "contributed" but not "committed". Another example would be > WebSurfPortlet. > > > > > Or are these portlets that are not in the CVS, perhaps for licensing > > reasons... > > > > Licensing may be one reason. Another would be complexity and future > maintenance issues. Not all contributors are committers and not all > committers have the time for integration. However all contributions are > valuable and we should provide a centralized place to access them. Since > we > don't have a true portlet repository, I though we'd have a page pointing > to > the publishers' sites. > > I think that Jetspeed-2 portlet applications contributed by others could > also be placed on that page. > > Best regards, > > Mark Orciuch - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jakarta Jetspeed - Enterprise Portal in Java > http://jakarta.apache.org/jetspeed/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
