Marc Veary wrote:
> Okay, I would like to contribute something back to the project as I
> use the code in a portal.
Great! Should it be listed here?
http://portals.apache.org/pluto/powered.html
>
> What I'll do is submit patches containing one or two classes at a time
> - I like the little-and-often paradigm ;-)
Sounds good!
Thanks again,
Elliot
>
> Kind regards,
> --
> Marc
>
> On 7/2/07, Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Marc Veary wrote:
>> > Excellent!
>> >
>> > I have been going through the trunk over the past 4-6 months
>> > converting the obvious, doing a code tidying and amending javadocs
>> > where necessary (this is not meant to be rude to other developers or
>> > imply anything bad) - I simply started to do this as I wanted to
>> > understand what the code was doing and found the learning curve
steep.
>> > I can submit some of these changes if it would be helpful?
>>
>> Absolutely!
>>
>> The best thing to do is to open a Jira issue and then submit
patches on
>> that issue.
>>
>> I don't know exactly what a good sized patch would be (or even if that
>> is an issue). I don't think we'd want one big mega patch, but maybe
>> patches scoped to a group of related packages (e.g.
>> org.apache.pluto.core.*). It just makes it a little easier to review
>> and apply.
>>
>> Others please chime in if you disagree -
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>> Elliot
>>
>> >
>> > I now check all revisions committed to the trunk as I reflect these
>> > changes (if the change required) in the code I compile and use.
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > --
>> > Marc
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/2/07, Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Marc,
>> >>
>> >> I hear you on finals - we just haven't been using them
throughout the
>> >> codebase, though that is something we could change.
>> >>
>> >> Trunk does require Java 1.5, so yes, developers are able to use 1.5
>> >> features. However, the 1.1.x branch needs to maintain 1.4 compat.
>> >>
>> >> Since a lot of patches are being applied to both the 1.1.x
branch and
>> >> the trunk, the code in trunk hasn't really begun to take
advantage of
>> >> 1.5 features. However, before 1.2.0 (trunk) is released, we do
>> plan to
>> >> convert to generics, at least for many of the interfaces.
>> >>
>> >> Sound good?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Elliot
>> >>
>> >> Marc Veary wrote:
>> >> > You can leave out the finals - is there an issue with using
>> finals? I
>> >> > use them all the time - you would be surprised at the issues it
>> >> > prevents.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also the annotations, please omit them - I do not mind in the
least.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you converting the loops to the newer format?
>> >> >
>> >> > On 7/2/07, Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> Nope,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not forward at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can I leave out the 'final's or do you want them for some
>> reason? We
>> >> >> also haven't been putting in the Java 5 annotations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What do you think?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Elliot
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Marc Veary wrote:
>> >> >> > Cool.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can I submit this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
>> >> >> > public Map getUserInfo( final PortletRequest request )
throws
>> >> >> > PortletContainerException
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> > final String remoteUser = request.getRemoteUser();
>> >> >> > if( remoteUser != null )
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> > final Map info = (Map)this.userInfoMap.get(
>> remoteUser );
>> >> >> > if( info == null )
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> > return Collections.EMPTY_MAP;
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> > return info;
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> > return Collections.EMPTY_MAP;
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I hope this is not too forward of me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Keep up the good work!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Kind regards,
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Marc
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 7/2/07, Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Good catch Marc,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not enough sleep and too much coffee on my part. :-)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Fixed r552420, 552421.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks!
>> >> >> >> Elliot
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Marc Veary wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Hi All,
>> >> >> >> > Just got the HEAD from SVN and was checking over the
>> changes as I
>> >> >> try
>> >> >> >> > to keep this in sync with the code I am using. I
noticed the
>> >> >> >> > following does not seem to be correct:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > public Map getUserInfo(PortletRequest request)
>> >> >> >> > throws PortletContainerException {
>> >> >> >> > if ( request.getRemoteUser() != null ) {
>> >> >> >> > Map info =
>> >> (Map)userInfoMap.get(request.getRemoteUser());
>> >> >> >> > if ( info == null ) {
>> >> >> >> > return Collections.EMPTY_MAP;
>> >> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >> > return new HashMap();
>> >> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This ALWAYS returns an EMPTY MAP? Whereas the previous
>> version
>> >> >> >> > returned the userInfoMap from the request. I think the
>> attempt
>> >> >> was to
>> >> >> >> > return an empty map if the 'info' was null?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Kind regards,
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> > Marc
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
