> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rapha�l Luta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 10:52 AM
> To: JetSpeed
> Subject: Re: Reworking the way Portlets are viewed.
>
>
> 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.
yep, one of my co-workers also wrote a similar piece of code, but I've
been too busy to commit it ;-(
> 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.
how about assigning names also to portletsets and referencing them also
from the URL?
This would also eliminate the need for "applications"?
> 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"
how about making it configurable... but by default they should be
namespaced, I agree.
Neeme
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
