I guess one way would be to go to [email protected] and ask about a possible rewrite of the console based on pax-wicket. The sling console is also based on the felix one, so you should be able to reach everyone involved I'd think.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 07:00, Charles Moulliard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > If we would like to share our efforts with other communities and avoid > to reinvent the wheel, that makes sense to capitalise the work made by > other projects Apache Felix, Sling, ... regarding to WebConsole but my > first question will be how can we initiate this debate between > different Apache projects having different team members, boards, > interests to improve what exist and suggest to Apache Wicket to better > separate code from display and rendering ? The existing situation > could also be improved if we decided all together to adopt stricts > convention but is it possible to do that between Apache Communities. > > Remark : pax-wicket is not so trivial to use ..... > > Regards, > > Charles > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 to Guillaume; I also think that this is a quite general project. >> But still, using e.g. pax-wicket would allow to define >> easy-to-understood OSGi extension points to the UI which should make >> the webconsole easier to adapt and extend for more specific use cases >> (and e.g. without embedding/adapting the webconsole code) as we do >> now. In addition, a framework (such as wicket) would ("automatically") >> create a much clearer structure between html, css, js, ... (as Charles >> pointed out as a problem) >> >> But would e.g. Felix or Sling use a wicket based webconsole? >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The web console has been designed to be very lightweight, and the >>> first consequence is of course the fact that by not using a big >>> framework, the code is a bit more complicated as you have seen. >>> >>> If we plan to rewrite one, we need to make sure the benefits outweight >>> the drawbacks of rewriting for the sake of it, as if we are to >>> rewrite, we will have to actually maintain it, whereas, now, the felix >>> community does the maintenance. Also, i don't think such a console >>> is specific to Karaf, so it might very well make sense to look for >>> other communities to work together (such as felix, sling, geronimo) >>> ... >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 21:06, Charles Moulliard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This week-end, I have spend some time on Apache Felix & Karaf >>>> WebConsole code. What I have discovered make me very unhappy and >>>> frustrated because the project(s) lack of structure, complicate the >>>> development of screens and decrease development productivity (html >>>> code is mixed in javascript, json variables are set everywhere in the >>>> code and use in several of javascript functions, no template is used >>>> to render html pages, locale is not used to translate text, ....). >>>> >>>> I have no idea about what is planned to do for the future (Karaf 3.0), >>>> if we will continue to use Apache Felix WebConsole or create our own >>>> web console, but a reflexion about which Web frameworks, Ajax >>>> Javascript should take place to simplify development lifecycle. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Charles Moulliard >>>> Apache Committer >>>> >>>> Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com >>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard >>>> Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard >>>> Skype: cmoulliard >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> ------------------------ >>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>> ------------------------ >>> Open Source SOA >>> http://fusesource.com >>> >> > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
