burtonator wrote:
>
> FYI
>
> I am reworking they way Portlets are viewed.
>
> Instead of using the PortletViewerScreen (I never liked this anyway) I
> am going to have a different path_info based system:
>
+0. I agree this is a good thing but we must be careful in the implementation.
> /jetspeed
>
> - will show your PSML
>
> /jetspeed/portlet/Slashdot
>
> - will show the Slashdot portlet with a default PortletController based
> on MimeType
>
You use a Turbine-like dynamic URI with a parameter name/value approach. This means
there will even more "reserved" parameter name to Jetspeed operation. I'm not
sure this is a good idea.
> /jetspeed/portlet/Slashdot/portlet-controller/RowColumn
>
> - will show the Slashdot portlet with a RowColumnPortletController.
> This won't work until we get portlet controls and portlet controllers
> into the PortletRegistry.
>
Hmm.. What's the need for that ? If you only have 1 portlet the use of a controller
doesn't make much sense. If you plan ton pass several portlet parameters, you're
actually recreating a PSML fragment, there should be a more compact (but maybe less
readable) notation.
In all case, I'd think we should start using "namespaced" parameters to avoid
conflict with other sets of parameters:
ie, instead of portlet, use jetspeed-portlet
and instead of portlet-controller, use jetspeed-controller
or maybe if we feel lazy, "jet-portlet" and "jet-controller"
--
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]
