ingo schuster wrote:
>
> At 11:03 01/30/01, Raphaël Luta wrote:
> >David Sean Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > ****************************************************************************
> > > ******
> > > The 'Portlet API'
> > >
> > > I haven't seen much activity in this area lately...
> > > How does the Layout system relate to the work being done on the portlet
> > api?
> > >
> >
> >It's orthogonal. The portlet API is supposed to be portal implementation
> >independant. Once the portlet API is defined, we can start working on
> >implementing a "portlet runner" that can use portal neutral components.
> >
> >The proposed layout system is Jetspeed/Turbine specific and interacts with
> >the portlet API through an adapter class, the general picture will be
> >something like
> >
> >user <---> [ Jetspeed Engine ] <---> [portlet runner] <--- Portlet API --
> >developper
> > ^ ^
> > | |
> > site configurations portlet descriptors
> >
> > > Should the portlet api be accessible in the toolbox?
> > > Perhaps not the entire api, but just the relevant parts, or is it something
> > > entirely different.
> > >
> > >
> > ****************************************************************************
> > > ******
> > >
> > > It would help to make some comparisons and contrast:
> > >
> > > Is a Window Manager something like a 'control'?
> >
> >Yes, except that it works at least at a pane level and not a the entry level.
> >This makes it easier to implement general "skins" for a site and I couldn't
> >find any real need for the functionality at the entry level.
> >
> > > Is a Layout Manager something like a 'controller'?
> >
> >Yes.
> >Layout managers will certainly be more complex than controllers
> >because you can't nest panes so we'll need something like "MultiColumnLM"
> >whereas in PSML the simple RowColumnController was enough for any tabular
> >display requirements.
> >
> > > Is a Configuration like a psml resource(s)?
> >
> >Roughly. There are huge differences between the 2 :
> >- no recursive tree-like structure because it proved difficult to build
> > a simple, workable customizer on these kind of structures
> >- all the elements have id attributes for easy reference
> >- the scope is very different: a PSML file was basically a site page
> >description
> > for a user; a configuration file describes all the customized elements for
> > a given user for the whole site
> >
> >Example:
> >with PSML, you have 5 customizable pages in your site, 2 acces modes (HTML and
> >WML) and 2 users + default, you get
> >5 * 2 * (2+1) = 30 PSML files, all independent.
> >If an administrator wants to modify the main page, he's screwed because
> >there are
> >no links between the different PSML files.
> >
> >with configuration, same example, you have:
> >- 5 site templates (Velocity, JSP, whatever)
> >- 2 * (2+1) = 6 configuration files
>
> That's interesting, do you really think that we could have templates that
> are general enough to support all access nodes? It's hard to imagine for me
> how it'd work to deliver different markup just by configuring the template.
> Or is this where your Cocoon2 vision comes into play? ;-)
>
In this specific example, you're right. You'd probably have 2 sets of
templates, one for supporting HTML and the other for WML, so that would
make:
- 2 * 5 site templates
The previous figure would probably be correct however if you had 2 HTML
configurations (like "at work" and "at home").
In fact, it's a bad idea to link configuration with multi-device support.
Configurations may be created and maintained by users whereas multi-device
support is always managed by the administrator or to say it otherwise, there's
no point in giving your users a tool to customize theur WML page if your site
doesn't support WML...
--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vivendi Universal Networks - Services Manager / Paris
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
