Hi David, Here is my issue. A portlet can have any number of preferences and those preferences can have any number of values. For supporting multiple values, I took the approach of each preference being a node and it's values being any number properties (keyed: 1..n) within that node, so you can see where having the property manager all the time would really start to become a pain plus it exposes our implementation, which, IMOHO, is a bad idea.
There are default preferences that come with a Portlet in its descriptor and there are per entity/user preferences that will default to those in deployment descriptor. However, a portlet is not limited to those defined in the portlet.xml i.e. more could be added my an admin or the user themselves. So, as you can see, a user's set of preferences could differ from those provided in the deployment descriptor. I think I would be happy with being able to exclude entire nodes and their descendants from the PortetManager restriction. On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 22:48, David Le Strat wrote: > Scott, > > The reason, I introduced this restriction was to be > able to tie preferences to property sets and enforce > consistency in the properties of a user profile for > instance. > > I am not sure we would want to find yourself in a > situation where user A has property 1, 2, 3 on their > profile and user B property 1, 2, 6 and no consistency > in the definition of the profile properties. > > Now, there are other ways to enforce that kind of > consistency that to enforce it at the prefs layer. If > this is causing an issue, I am +1 on making changes, > as long as we keep in mind the point mentioned above. > > Regards, > > David. > > --- Scott T Weaver > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why do we have to PropertyManager.addPropertyKeys() > > to be able to add > > properties to a node? I do no see anywhere in the > > java.util.Prefs docs > > where this a requirement. Right now this has become > > a large road block > > in converting Portlet preferences to uses our Prefs > > impl. I do not want > > to manually add allowed properties every time a new > > value is added to a > > portlet preference. > > > > I vote +1 on removing this restriction. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > ****************************************** > > * Scott T. Weaver * > > * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * > > * <http://www.einnovation.com> * > > * -------------------------------------- * > > * Apache Jetspeed Enterprise Portal * > > * Apache Pluto Portlet Container * > > * * > > * OpenEditPro, Website Content Mangement * > > * <http://www.openeditpro.com> * > > ****************************************** > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ****************************************** * Scott T. Weaver * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * * <http://www.einnovation.com> * * -------------------------------------- * * Apache Jetspeed Enterprise Portal * * Apache Pluto Portlet Container * * * * OpenEditPro, Website Content Mangement * * <http://www.openeditpro.com> * ****************************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
