burtonator wrote:
>
> Rapha�l Luta wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Yes. The problem is that the above controllers all assume HTML. the
> > > WAPPortletController should work with WAP decks.
> > >
> >
> > No, there're not dependant for their functionality on any output format, a column
>is
> > always a column whether it's rendered in HTML, PDF, SVG or Flash, same for grids,
> > etc...
> > The issue with WML 1.1 is that it allows very limited presentation options but WML
> > 1.2
>
> Yes. But the problem is that currently we have VERY small WML devices.
> I can't have Portlets arranged in a table with this mechanism :(..
> Technically I could but about 80% of devices couldn't render them.
>
Sure, it just means that controllers have very limited options when dealing with
WML and basically have to output simillar layouts...
> Truth is it should be a WMLDeckPortletController. :)
In my gloassary, it's called the CardPortletController ;)
> > is already changing this (introduced <table> last time I checked...).
> > Writing a WAPPortletController implies that there can't be 2 WAP controller
> > coexisting,
> > just like writing an HTMLPortletController would mean there should be only one
> > controller for HTML. This doesn't make sense to me.
>
> IMO WML is already a dead technology. The only reason it exists is for
> downlevel clients. As soon as cellphones get one large LCD panel and
> they are running Linux/Mozilla (drooolll :) we won't need WML anymore.
> This is why providing advanced layouts to these type of devices isn't
> really practical. IMO. By the time the screens get large enough to
> hold 2 Portlets at once we can just run Mozilla :)
>
Maybe in the US, but I have a very nice Nokia GSM Phine with a large screen ;P
> >
> > Don't understand this question. Can you provide a use case so that I can grasp the
> > issue ?
>
> OK.
>
> Imagine a really complex layout. With PSML it is very easy to build a
> massivly complex GUI. This is both good and bad. If you want to add a
> Portlet to the current layout... where do you add it. IE:
>
> - users launches the Customizer
OK
> - user chooses to navigate multiple controllers within that PSML file.
Actually, in the PSML users don't deal with controllers, they deal exclusively with
PortletSets. The controller is just a property of a specific set.
> - User wants to add PortletX to a section on his screen.
so far, so good
> - At this point the Customizer where in the PSML document to place the
> Portlet. It can't go by using the currently selected Portlets name/ID
> because this may have been added twice within the document.
>
I don't understand these sentences, some words are missing or my English is
failing me.
> This is why we need to use named sets (even if we just use numbers).
> When the user selects a Portlet I can have it also select a set. This
> way when the user selects 'Add Portlet' the Customizer knows correctly
> what set he needs to add this to. The problem is that since PSML can
> have theoretically nested <portlets> we can't figure this out without a
> kludge :(
>
I'm not sure I understand you, but if we have a Portlet GUID system, since
PortletSet are subclasses of Portlet, you can get a direct reference to a PortletSet
whatever the nesting level...
> <snip>
> > > The problem with this is that you need to take a .psml file and provide
> > > a COMPLETE UI for this. Right now I want to take this .psml file and
> > > make some assumptions (that it uses a 2 column layout) and then build
> > > from there. We can add more complicated layouts later.
> > >
> >
> > As long as we can build more complicated issue, I don't see why we can't pre-set
> > some options to simplify the initial implementation, but I'd hate to see some
>layout
> > assumptions in the customizer API...
>
> Yes. It can be done correctly without layout assumptions but only if we
> use the <set> proposal. Otherwise we can't really figure out how to
> build this.
>
> ... just thinking out loud. We could implement this by using the DOM's
> id() of the current <portlet> node. The only problem is that Castor
> won't give this to us. I might be able to trick it into doing it with
> an xmlschema hack.
>
I'm waiting on your markup example to comment on this. I can think I can picture
a way to write a Customizer covering most cases with the current PSML but if your
solution is simpler it may be worth it, as long as we don't lose any functionality.
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
