> The idea after we have stabilized 1.3a2, we could proceed in two > separate lines: > - Go for a 1.3 that is basically as 1.3a2 with bugs removed, better > security, ... > - Go for a 2.0 that would use the new portal API specification. For > this work I would like to have feedback from the IBM team involved in > Websphere portal server, since they were the original authors (after > list discussion and feedback) of the proposal.
We can do both. I am more interested in 2.0... I would like to start a new cvs for Jetspeed-2, similar to how Turbine now has Turbine-2 and Turbine-3 repos. Jetspeed-2 would be based on the Portlet API, and a Portlet Container SPI. >From reading the postings on the emails, and from personal experiences, there is some question as to whether we should continue to base Jetspeed on the Turbine framework. I see some basic framework choices available at jakarta: * Avalon? * Cocoon-2 * Struts * Turbine-2 * Turbine-3 * none IMO, we are not leveraging jakarta-commons, and we should be. When looking to refactor the jetspeed architecture, we should have a good knowledge of all the apache projects and their capabilities. I will be spending the next few weeks doing exactly that. David -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
