Hi Serge, --- Serge Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:32 AM 8/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi Raphael, > > > >--- "Luta, Raphael (VUN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If I understand correctly your request in regards to the > > > JSR 168, you would like to be able to develop a client based > portal > > > that leverages the portlet components developped against the > JSR168 > > > API. Is that correct ? > > > > > > I think that what you can do in this case is implementing > > > a portal "server" on the client, with client side technologies > that > > > interact with a remote portlet container over the network, for > > > example > > > through WSRP. In such a setup, your client can control exactly > the > > > aggregation behavior and still leverage any JSR 168 portlets > through > > > WSRP. > > > > > > Since JSR 168 assumes a server-based aggregation process, it can > not > > > answer alone your requirement but OTOH I don't think it's a > > > showstopper > > > since WSRP will perfectly handle this requirement. > > > > > > Am I missing something here ? > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that in order to accomodate client-side > >technologies that a browser plugin 'portal server' would be > necessary? > >Users would reject this outright. I really don't see how this would > >solve the problem. It is the whole interaction model that is the > >problem, not where the 'portal server' lives. > > Actually I think Raphael has an interesting idea. Let's suppose > you're > using Mozilla as a client technology. You could design a XUL client > that > would use LiveConnect to do WSRP requests to a WSRP compliant server > (Jetspeed 2?). Within this server the interface of JSR-168 could be > used to > communicate with the portlets. > > But I also have some ideas for improvements for JSR-168, but I > believe it > can come later. The politics behind this JSR have slowed it down to a > > crawl, and I think it's is best for version 1.0 to get out the door > as soon > as possible, so that work may start on the foundation that's been > laid out. >
I must respectfully disagree that it's best to just push this spec out the door. You can't position yourself for the future if the foundation is not set properly and I am asserting that it is not. rgds, Gerry Reno __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
