if for a good reason -- and a majority on the mailing
list *is* a good reason.
Cheers,
Thomas B.
- Original Message -
From: "Raphal Luta" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "JetSpeed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 14:33
Subject: Re: Secure Portlets
"Thomas F.
At 11:39 12/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphael,
I agree that it would be a complete waste of resources if all the portlet
does is providing the SAX/DOM interface and streaming it. But I am not
saying that. The idea is that such a derived portlet does everything
required/desired on post-processing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Santiago Gala wrote:
We are already supporting, in not yet public code, HTML and WML with thesame PSML file using a final media adapted XSLT transformation. Allportlets generate XML, and the aggregation process is a matter offollowing the PortletSet
Santiago Gala wrote:
(another HTML message slipped)...
I think I found the way to switch off HTML from mozilla at the end...
Sorry.
--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search:
"Thomas F. Boehme" wrote:
Santiago, Raphael,
What's wrong with doing the things you suggested in a derived portlet?
Because the stream is the final result you can map (virtually) any other
method like SAX, DOM, ECS, etc to the stream. This way the interface is not
complicated any
At 13:10 08/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphael,
I think I do understand what you mean.
"Well-formed XML" simply implies that the output of the portlet will be
parseable by an XML parser but does not enforce (or even expect) any
DTD or schema compliance.
How on earth do you want to write a
Raphal Luta wrote:
At 13:10 08/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphael,
I think I do understand what you mean.
"Well-formed XML" simply implies that the output of the portlet
will be
parseable by an XML parser but does not enforce (or even expect) any
DTD or schema compliance.
At 15:39 09/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphal Luta wrote:
We already decided on a stream oriented API so the choice can be
restricted to :
- char/byte streams
- SAX event streams
A DOM oriented portlet could make use of a utility class to convert DOM
into SAX (already there in most SAX
PROTECTED]
To: "JetSpeed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 15:39
Subject: Re: Secure Portlets
Raphal Luta wrote:
At 13:10 08/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphael,
I think I do understand what you mean.
"Well-formed XML" simply implies that the output of the
I can't believe Xo3 did their own thing!!! How do we get them back on board?
Thomas B.
- Original Message -
From: "Raphal Luta" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "JetSpeed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 15:58
Subject: Re: Secure Portlets
At 15:39 09/02/2
Raphal Luta wrote:
In case of portlets that use SAX, I have the name SAXlets (c)
Santiago Gala 2000. Look in the archives for the post where I
copyrighted the name implicitly last year :) These methods could be
put into servlet API, and I think they should. Something like an
on 2/9/01 6:24 PM, "Santiago Gala" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I find in more sad than other thing. Instead of working together
in public, they seem to be trying to close and split the community. So
bad. Why they did not put their ideas and discussions here?
Just guessing...
I would
al Luta" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "JetSpeed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 16:15
Subject: Re: Secure Portlets
At 15:05 07/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphael,
1- I still believe it's a bery bad idea not to impose a binding output
contract between the portlet and th
...
Cheers,
Thomas B.
- Original Message -
From: "David Sean Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "JetSpeed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 21:21
Subject: RE: Secure Portlets
Thomas,
I was under the impression that a Portlet(Portal) API would define
interf
al Message -
From:
Santiago Gala
To: JetSpeed
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001
3:29
Subject: Re: Secure Portlets
Raphaël Luta wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
type="cite">"Well-formed XML" simply implies that the output of the portlet
will
o me).
I still take comments and feedback. Is there no more interest in a new API
or is everyone busy doing other things?
Thomas B.
- Original Message -
From: "David Sean Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'JetSpeed'" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 18
At 15:05 07/02/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Raphael,
1- I still believe it's a bery bad idea not to impose a binding output
contract between the portlet and the container - I'd like the API
to only allow well-formed XML document output in order to
make outpout post-processing as easy
]]On Behalf Of Thomas F. Boehme
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 4:21 AM
To: JetSpeed
Subject: Re: Secure Portlets
Maybe I am missing something, but a portlet should not be concerned with
things like a profiler service. Instead the profiler service determines
which and how a portlet
Raphal Luta wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">"Well-formed XML" simply implies that the output of the portlet will be
parseable by an XML parser but does not enforce (or even expect) any
DTD or schema compliance.
My rationale for this is that I believe that, contrary to the servlet container
which
Chris,
Yes, the profiler does support groups, but the security isn't implemented.
So you could take the JetspeedProfilerService and extend with security.
I will be doing just that, but first Im more concerned with how profiling
services will work with the portlet api.
I've seen that the portlet
20 matches
Mail list logo
