El vie, 16-09-2005 a las 19:27 -0400, David H. DeWolf escribió: > Zheng had put together an initial framework for the Admin portlets. In > essence, the framework was as scaled down version of struts - > specifically designed for portlets. While it was great work, I am > personally opposed to hosting a framework (no matter how scaled down) in > pluto, simply because I could see maintenance of the framework alone > growing out of control quickly. Enhancement requests would role in > simply due to the fact that others are using the framework for different > portlets. . . . > > I'm curious what others thoughts are. IMHO we have 3 choices. Please > indicate your preference: > > [ ] Utilize an existing framework for the admin portlet. Why rewrite? > [ ] Roll our own framework for the admin portlet. Why not? > [ ] Utilize a simple controller portlet. Simplicity is best! >
I'm -1 WRT rolling a framework for it, with basically your arguments. I just wanted to point that, in case pluto wants to use something beyond a controller portlet, the portals-bridges module ( http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/portals/bridges/trunk/ ) offers several possibilities: velocity, struts, jsf, perl, php and soon python. This code is (if it isn't, it should be) completely free of dependencies in jetspeed, just portlet-api, and is devoted to implementing frameworks for portlet development using web technologies, such as Faces, Struts, etc. Most bridges have little code, just enough to offer basic JSR-168 services to other technologies' developers. As the current policy in the Apache Portals project is to grant commit rights to the whole project, any pluto committer has rights to commit there. What do you think? > Thanks, > > David > Regards Santiago -- VP and Chair, Apache Portals (http://portals.apache.org) Apache Software Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
