Hi Benjamin,
Torsten and others in the Univ of Jena group should comment on the completeness of the 286 branch.
I was able to build it last night without error. I also have been able to run simple portlets demonstrate 286 eventing in the 286 branch. Stefan Hepper also did a demo with this branch at JavaOne.
You -- and anyone else -- is welcome to help with the 286 branch. As I mentioned previously, the first order of business is to get all the fixes and improvements that have been done in the trunk in the last 7 months into the 286 branch. However, we should get input from our friends in Germany before we move in any definitive direction.
/Craig
-----Benjamin Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
To: [email protected]
From: Benjamin Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07/16/2007 10:22PM
Subject: Re: Next few releases (was Re: [VOTE] Pluto 1.1.4 Release)
Craig,
I've been anticipating working with an alpha or beta of a branch that
is working towards 286 compatibility, but I am just wondering about the
status of the current 286-COMPATIBILITY branch. I have been holding off
on developing my portal until there is at least a somewhat stable
version. If this is the case with the current 286 branch, I'll start
working with it and report or help fix any issues that I come across.
Do you think that the current branch is at least good enough to get
started with, or should I wait until some of the recent updates from
trunk get applied?
Thanks,
Ben
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:13 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Thanks for reminding me about this. Yes, we can all go off in any
> number of directions if we want.
>
> I intend to start focussing my efforts on the 286-COMPATILIBITY
> branch. merging the code with the current trunk and pushing out a
> Pluto 2.0 alpha or beta release. I hope that others in the Pluto
> community will join me in that effort.
> /Craig
>
>
>
>
> "David H. DeWolf"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 07/16/2007 12:44 PM
> Please respond to
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
> To
> [email protected]
> cc
>
> Subject
> Next few releases
> (was Re: [VOTE]
> Pluto 1.1.4
> Release)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > I am very much against moving toward a 1.2.0 release. We should not
> get
> > mired in a 1.2.x release cycle of a JSR-168 impl. We need to start
> > moving toward jsr-286. The jsr-286 EG will be releasing a public
> draft
> > soon that is feature complete. Torsten's work in the 286 branch has
> > almost caught up with the draft spec. Both Exo and JBoss portal has
> > preliminary (alpha/beta) jsr-286 releases. We should not be that
> far
> > behind.
>
> There's no reason why we can't do both. OS is about scratching your
> own
> itch. If someone wants to work on 1.2.x, then go for it. If you
> want
> to focus on 2.x, then by all means - do it! Shoot, if someone wanted
> to
> dig up 1.0.x they are welcome to do that as well.
>
> David
>
>
> > /Craig
> >
> >
> >
> > *Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
> >
> > 07/16/2007 10:00 AM
> > Please respond to
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > To
> > [email protected]
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: [VOTE] Pluto 1.1.4 Release
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Looks like the changes snuck in between the 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 release
> with
> > PLUTO-350 (r523130) - the relative URL provider. I'm thinking we
> could
> > probably take it out, but I haven't taken a thorough look.
> >
> > Of course, since the change is out there with 1.1.3, 1.1.3 users who
> > move to 1.1.5 will be broken.
> >
> > We could re-release this 1.1.4 candidate as a 1.2.0, and put a note
> on
> > the website noting the 1.1.3 incompatibility. Or just release 1.1.5
> and
> > retract 1.1.3?
> >
> > Elliot
> >
> > David H. DeWolf wrote:
> > > -1
> > >
> > > 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 should be backwards compatible (binary and
> runtime
> > > compat). This looks to me like we introduced an incompatibility.
> In the
> > > meantime, is there a workaround we can use in order to get 1.1.5
> > > released without this incompatibility?
> > >
> > > This type of change can be added to 1.2.x BUT should be
> specifically
> > > mentioned in an "upgrade" guide.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > Charles Severance wrote:
> > >> Elliot,
> > >>
> > >> Switching from 1.1.3 to 1.1.4 - Sakai compile fails with the
> following:
> > >>
> > >>
> > /Users/csev/dev/sakai/portal/portal-render-impl/impl/src/java/org/sakaiproject/portal/render/portlet/services/SakaiPortalCallbackService.java:128:
> >
> > >>
> >
> org.sakaiproject.portal.render.portlet.services.SakaiPortalCallbackService.SakaiPortletURLProvider
> >
> > >> is not abstract and does not override abstract method
> > >> isSecureSupported() in org.apache.pluto.spi.PortletURLProvider
> > >> class SakaiPortletURLProvider implements
> PortletURLProvider
> > >>
> > >> Has an API changed? I am happy to update Sakai, adding methods
> or
> > >> whatever - let me know if this was an intentional change.
> > >>
> > >> /Chuck
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
