Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)

[Jason Dillon]

I actually pinged the pluto dev list yesterday:

    http://www.nabble.com/Pluto-1.0.x-to-1.1-upgrade-guide-%28Apache- 
Geronimo-Console%29-tf3337657.html

If someone who knows more about the details could chime in (Paul?  
Aaron?) it might help.

--jason


On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:

I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline
for making the admin console more pluggable.  Jetspeed and Liferay are
excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in
their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond
what is needed for the admin console.

David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance
in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very
interesting conversation.  He specifically said that pluto 1.1
supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the
admin console pluggable.  See:
  http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3
That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation
while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0.

Best wishes,
Paul


On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more
reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console.  Someone just
needs to do the work.  :)

I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be  
much
more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the
console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people
developing portal applications.

I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while  
back.

Thanks,
      Aaron

On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> > It's used by pluto for the admin console.  No idea if more recent
> > would work.
> >
> > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate
>
> I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with
> that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also  
looks
> like that might not be a bad thing:
>
> <snip>
> Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are
> embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily
> compatible with Pluto 1.0.x.
>
> Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it  
more
> user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to  
get
> started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your
> portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always  
welcome
> on the user and developer mailing lists!
>
> </snip>
>
> I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how  
much
> better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues
> with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets  
installed
> dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues?
>
> Anyone know?
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
>