Rapha�l Luta wrote:
>
> "Kevin A. Burton" wrote:
> >
> > So right now we have two types of entries:
> >
> > <entry> and <entryRef>
> >
> > This is a problem IMO. Why? The OCS feeds (currently at 1759) should
> > become part of the PortletRegistry. Under the current mechanism Entry
> > and EntryRef are two different objects. So the there really isn't any
> > decent way to browse and combine them.
> >
> > Anyway what I propose is this:
> >
> > <entry type="ref" name="RSS"/>
> >
> > or
> >
> > <entry type="instance" name="RSS"/>
> >
> > This should solve the problem of browsing and combining multiple
> > objects. This way when the FeedDaemon starts up it will determine the
> > Portlets from the OCS and then add them to the PortletRegistry.
> >
> > Then the PortletBrowser can just determine the Portlet's it needs from
> > the PortletRegistry. This would also include any explicitly defined
> > Portlets and also those that were determine from the FeedDaemon.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> I agree that entry and entryRef should not both exist. They were designed to allow
> full local definition of entreis and references to the registry. If we only allow
> full definition in the registry and references in the site markup, we don't need
> anymore the <entry name="xxx"> in PSML, only in the registry markup.
+1
When you commited the mod with <entryRef> this was basically
compatiblity for the OCS feeds. I can update these. I would rather
have everything as an <entry> and this way we can pass a "name" to the
PortletFactory which can get more info from the PortletRegistry. The
FeedDaemons operation will be to create entry references and then place
these references into the PortletRegistry. Then the PortletBrowser XSP
app will just enumerate/search through the PortletRegistry. This give
the added benefit that non OCS feed portlets will show up. :)
There is another feature we need. We need a way to retrieve/browse XML
portletsportlets that are part of a given XML schema. This should
probably go into the multiple content-type proposal as well... maybe 1.3
unless there is an earlier impl.
> So actually, we have:
>
> in PSML: <entry ref="xxx"></entry>
> in registry <entry name="xxx"><classname>xxxx</classname></entry>
>
> > Rapha�l ... don't you have some pending commits?
>
> Yeah a lot, but I started to work off-line last week-end and this week-end I was
> still off-line to work so synchronising with the current CVS is real pain.
> Also since I did some major API rework, I *KNOW* that as soon as I start committing
> code, I'll break quite a lot of things. I want to keep the main CVS working for new
> users checkout so I think I'll create a new branch to land the changes, resolve the
> conflicts and then port it to the main one. OK, for you ?
+1. branching and then merging the code is cool. If you break CVS just
send out an e-mail telling the list.
Kevin
--
Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://relativity.yi.org
Message to SUN: "Please Open Source Java!"
"For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
