Raphael Luta wrote:
> "Kevin A. Burton" wrote:
> >
> > > For the benefit of those who could not come to London, here is a quick
> > > summary of the main points that were discussed and actions proposed :
> > >
> > > - get the CVS HEAD branch working again :
> > >
> > > Kevin, if you can commit your changes, please do it ASAP.
> > > If your changes are not ready, I'd propose that we create next week
> > > a branch out of the current HEAD so that you can continue the work
> > > on proposal 3 and that we merge the pre-proposal003 branch as
> > > HEAD.
> >
> > +1. I would say that we should go this route. The PSML stuff is somewhat
> > stable now but certainly not ready for development on. :(
> >
>
> Santiago, can you take care of this since you did all the work on the
> alternate branch ?
>
Sorry, I missed it for some time.
Just a question. Does anybody know the procedure for doing this? I could work out,
but I would prefer that people with more experience in cvs tells me if there is a
standard way to switch branches.
I will do it as soon as I know that I will not break everything...
Also, a question to Kevin. Is there a set of changes in HEAD that can be merged
with current branch without breaking code?
>
> > > This way new people interested in Jetspeed can check out a working
> > > version of the product.
> > >
> > > - update our dependency on Turbine to benefit from the new
> > > developments of the framework (new ACL model, templating, etc...)
> > >
> > > I'll work on the template model of Turbine to see if we can upgrade
> > > the PSML and rendering implementation to use templates without
> > > breaking the Portlet API.
> >
> > Yeah.. I haven't had a chance to look at the new Turbine stuff.
> >
>
> I've not yet looked at the new ACL model since it's not in the main branch but
> I gave some thoughts on the template issue and there are several ways of
> implementing this in jetspeed depending on our goals:
>
> - Do we want to keep existing Portlets unchanged by this addition ?
> - Do we want to be able to mix templated and non templated Portlets in
> the same layout ?
> - Which templating system are we planning to support ?
>
> I'd answer yes, yes and Webmacro/Velocity/XSLT.
+1. I think we should offer three different ways to write portlets in the long
term:
1. ByteStream based (HttpRequest/Response), for integration of jsp and servlets.
Templates (Velocity...) are really a specialization of this solution. We have some
code samples that could come to the codebase.
2. Object Tree based (ECS, DOM?, ...). That is our current way, even as Turbine is
deprecating it.
3. XML event Stream based (Cocoon2). This is the most promising way I see in the
long term, but currently is simply not in place in Jetspeed.
>
> I think I'll try a base implementation of such a system by
> subclassing the Portlet interface into a TemplatePortlet interface and provide
> alternative JetspeedLayout.
>
+1. I imagine you will follow the track of the Turbine Template Screens.
>
> --
> 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]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
