Hi,
On 26 Aug 2004, at 08:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+0 (I'm with Giacomo: until portal has all the facilities of portal-fw,
we shouldn't mark it deprecated: IIRC, deprecated meant 'likely to
disappear after two releases', which is clearly bad for users)
b) mark
We have currently two portal blocks:
- the (old) portal-fw block: this is the first portal implementation that is
used here and there. The development of this block stopped a long time ago;
there were only a few bug fixes and nearly no commits in the last months.
- the (new) portal block: this is
On 26.08.2004 09:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+1
b) mark portal as stable
+1
Jörg
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
We have currently two portal blocks:
- the (old) portal-fw block: this is the first portal implementation that is
used here and there. The development of this block stopped a long time ago;
there were only a few bug fixes and nearly no commits in the
Giacomo Pati wrote:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
Hmm.. deprecated mean Hey man, go change you portal as it
will be removed in the future is this you want to signal?
Yes :( The portal-fw is a nice portal framework, but the code
is very very ugly (I know it 'cause I wrote it). The new
At 8/26/2004 12:57 AM, you wrote:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
b) mark portal as stable
I am +1 to both of these - with a couple of caveats.
1. The old portal contains at least a minimal amount of portal
administration functionality. The new portal contains nothing.
2. The new portal
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
1. The old portal contains at least a minimal amount of
portal administration functionality. The new portal contains nothing.
Unfortunately this is true, but I'm really sure that soon
some tools for the new portal will appear and with a little
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Mmmh... I'm not sure the scratch an itch pattern applies to docs.
With code, you start scratching because you need a new
feature, and since you need to write that new feature for
your own need, you can with not much additional cost share it
with others.
With
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Giacomo Pati wrote:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
Hmm.. deprecated mean Hey man, go change you portal as it
will be removed in the future is this you want to signal?
Yes :( The portal-fw is a nice portal framework, but the code
is very very ugly (I
Giacomo Pati wrote:
If one deprecates something it suggests a replacement. IIRC
the new portal lacks some administration tools which the old
one has (user admin, etc.), right?
So, what is your suggestion instead of using the old portal
block than?
If you have an existing project, you
Carsten Ziegeler said:
Now, let me give the dumb open source answer (this is not
targetted at you, Ralph). Cocoon and the portal block are
open source. So, if something is missing or not the way you
like it etc., you can change it. This is usually how open
source works: someone has an itch
Hmm.. deprecated mean Hey man, go change you portal as it
will be removed in the future is this you want to signal?
Yes :( The portal-fw is a nice portal framework, but the code
is very very ugly (I know it 'cause I wrote it). The new
portal block is (apart from tools) a 100% replacement which
is
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
If we deprecate the old portal this gives users the right
signal: the development of the old portal has stopped. A
stable block indicates that the development continues.
IMHO 'deprecated' mean much more than just 'the development of the old
portal has
Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+1
b) mark portal as stable
+1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+1
b) mark portal as stable
+1
--
Reinhard
15 matches
Mail list logo
