Weaver, Scott wrote: >> My personal opinion (but I think most developers will agree) is >> that Jetspeed and portlets should be separate modules in the >> future. > > > +1 on that. It will keep clutter out of the base registry files. ' > > However, I think the public would loose out on a lot of good portlets > people are willing to share. I think there should a standard > repository, like commons-portlets, to house these contributions. >
Hence the proposal to expose this concrete contribution as a Bugzilla RFE, for the moment. I don't think we are ready yet for opening a portlets module.
> Scott > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Santiago Gala >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 6:33 AM >> To: Jetspeed Users List; Jetspeed Developers List Subject: Re: NNTP >> Porlet >> >> Kevin McIntyre wrote: >> >>> Using NNTP I've created a "Threaded Discussion" Portlet. I would >>> like >> >> to >> >>> contribute. It works with James, extending NNTPRepositoryImpl to >>> remove threads for moderated discussion. >>> >>> Is it necessary to Internationalize before contributing? >>> >> >> I would be nice :-) >> >> But I don't think a portlet which brings a James dependency should >> be inside jetspeed. (Maybe I understood it wrong). >> >> As a matter of fact, we are in the process of stabilizing Jetspeed >> 1 and planning a move to Jetspeed-2. >> >> My personal opinion (but I think most developers will agree) is >> that Jetspeed and portlets should be separate modules in the >> future. >> >> Jetspeed 2 will ship with functionality as a portal tool >> (administration), and a few key or simple demo portlets. >> >> Jetspeed will have separate modules for hosting development of >> portlets like what you are proposing, shipping in different >> "portlet applications". The original proposal for the Portlet API >> included facilities for doing this. I don't think they will drop >> it, since it is a highly desirable feature. >> >> So, while I think it will be worthwhile to look more into your >> proposal, I suggest that you open a bugzilla issue (Request For >> Enhancement), and discuss features and dependencies with interested >> people there. In this way, you can proceed without bringing >> additional dependencies inside jetspeed. >> >> If it looks worthwhile, it could be put in the scratchpad to >> develop there until it can be released (in the Jetspeed-2 >> infrastructure) as a portlet application. Or people could build it >> separately from the scratchpad. >> >> Regards, Santiago >> >> P.S.) I CC: dev, since it mostly belong to jetspeed development. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
