On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
Yep, the current portlet dev is really complicated, but there will
be a huge work to do if we decide to switch pluto to other framework
like JSF... not sure how much for Pluto2.
And I think we don't have enough time for the migration before G2.2
release..
I agree. But we need to fix the private repo issue now..... is anyone
looking at my patch or my patch updated to the latest dojo release?
Since I don't see problems I'm tempted to apply it. Then we can try
to figure out something for the 0.4.3 legacy dojo.
thanks
david jencks
-Rex
2009/7/2 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
If we're going to rewrite bits of the portal, we should consider
moving to pluto 2. IIUC there are a bunch of features in portlet 2
spec that may make our portlets simpler. I also think we should
investigate frameworks such as jsf or even wicket or something
because the current portlet code is ridiculously complicated for
what it does. There must be a more sensible way to write a web app.
thanks
david jencks
On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Joseph Leong wrote:
So unfortunately what happened between Dojo 0.4.3-> Mostly anything
newer especially 1.3.1 is that they had the idea to classify their
libraries to "Dijit" (Widgets) and other subsections. As such, the
porting effort is not small. I believe the debug-views portlets and
such still depend on 0.4.3. At this point in time, my opinion would
be to not try and migrate any 0.4.3 dependent code. There has been
so much change between the dojo versions that it would be probably
simpler and cleaner to just rewrite these portlets. I think it'd
be a good choice to get rid of the old Dojo libraries once and for
all as they add a bit to the geronimo footprint size.. not to
mention there are a lot more features in the latest Dojo release
that can probably accomplish what you wanted to in the older
versions.
Thanks,
Joseph Leong
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, David Jencks
<david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Ivan wrote:
I think the one is what need, no samples and testcases are
included. But I found 1.3.1 is released, why not use the newest
one ?
Newer would be better if we can get it to work. I set this up a
few days ago and forgot the details... I think that I saw some
problem and wasn't sure what was causing it and tried changing to
an earlier dojo version. I didn't actually have any reason to
think the problem was caused by dojo so very likely the more recent
release should work.
And for the legacy dojo 0.4.3, how shall we handle it ? Like
tomcat, maitaine a our own repo ?
Ideally I think we would migrate our code to up-to-date dojo.
Unfortunately I have no idea how hard that would be. Does anyone?
If we can't, I think there is some release of some 0.4.3 dojo,
perhaps we can investigate using or repackaging it.
There's also dwr.... but I think working on one dependency at a
time will be less confusing.
thanks
david jencks
2009/7/1 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
In my attempt to remove our svn repo I found that dojo releases a
dojo-war that looks pretty similar to our repacked dojo war. I
can make the build work with the substitution but I don't know
enough about dojo to know if/what it breaks. Is there anyone who
understands our use of dojo well enough to take a look and see if
this replacement is plausible?
I recall some discussion in the distant past about not including
all of dojo... I'm not sure if this is still a concern, but if the
released dojo-war works and is too big we can use maven to come up
with a smaller war.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4723 for my
patch.
thanks
david jencks
--
Ivan
