Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 5/5/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore, I personally consider JSR-168 a big mistake, and I would
prefer it to die peacefully.
Consider the way the world was before JSR-168 happened ... every portal
server had their own completely different API for building portlets, and
bunches of folks who come out the web application world think that "almost
portlet" solutions[1] are enough -- seemingly without caring that they just
added yet another incompatible API to the mix :-)
I quite agree, and it wasn't even just the incompatible vendors...
I remember back in about '97 or '98 or so, being asked to develop an
"Intranet site where there could be pluggable modules, each of which
kind of acts like a window in an MDI interface application, but they are
independent entities, and new modules can be added and removed and
modified by the user in various ways". I don't even think the word
"portal" was invented yet :) I remember spending a few weeks building
the thing, and the result was actually very good IM-not-so-humble-O ;) ...
But I also remember just a few years later when vendors started coming
out with these "portal server" thingamajigs, and I said "hey, cool, now
I don't have to maintain the code!". Then I remember soon after that
when we had migrated to BEA's portal product and then we decided to jump
ship to IBM and the massive hassle it was (read: we rewrote it all).
Then JSR-168 came about and I said "FINALLY!! Now I don't even have to
pick a vendor!".
I can agree with a number of negative comments about JSR-168, but it is
most definitely better than what was there before :)
Michael.
Craig
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
