carlos beltran wrote:
>
> > Very good explanation ! Do you think you code write this in xdocs ?
>
> Sure!!
> But i dont have commit access. May be someone with access can do it?
>
Either send it to the jetspeed-dev list or send it directly to me [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I'll review and commit it.
> > BTW, I'm currently working on integrating Roberto Carrasco velocity work into
> > Jetspeed and considering to remove the Cacheable interface from the base
> > Portlet interface.
> >
> > This way only those portlet implementations that want to be Cacheable need to
> > implement this feature.
> >
> > To keep backward compatibility, we could have an AbstractPortlet implementing
> > Cacheable and a DynamicAbstractPortlet that would not implement it (I would
> > prefer AbstractPortlet and CacheableAbstractPortlet but this may break portlets
> > extending AbstractPortlet and relying on the caheable interface methods...)
> >
> > Would that suit you ?
>
> Yes, I think it is a good idea.
>
OK, I'll see if I can integrate that into 1.3a2 without breaking existing code...
While I'm testing waters here :
Are there users out there who depend on PortletSet, PortletControl and PortletConfig
being real classes rather that interfaces (for things like new PortletConfig() or
new PortletSet() ) ?
If not, I'd like to make these interfaces and provide the existing implementations
as BasePortletConfig(), BasePortletSet() and AbstractPortletControl(). That will
give us a lot of additionnal flexibility.
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
