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

[Jason Dillon]

How modular is the existing console code?  I'm thinking that some  
work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing  
functionality could be split up into smaller domain-specific modules  
and then deployed into the console app.  Right now it looks like a  
big app, would like to see each of the major bits as a separate  
module... to help keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code  
(which I've already started to notice when I looked at some Derby and  
AMQ-related console bits last).

How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto?  I know that J2 now uses  
Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1).  I'm all for  
lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if  
it makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins  
to plugin/customize their own administration bits.

--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
>
>
>
>
>