Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent would work. We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks like that might not be a bad thing: Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome on the user and developer mailing lists! I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? Anyone know? --jason
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
Or... what about Jetspeed 2? Again I know jack about all things portal so I have no idea... but I would like to have the console get to be more pluggable and dynamic to install plugin bits at runtime. --jason On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent would work. We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks like that might not be a bad thing: Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome on the user and developer mailing lists! I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? Anyone know? --jason
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
Actually, what I'd really like to see is our console allow app developers to plugin their own portlets for custom administration of their applications which are running in Geronimo... --jason On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Or... what about Jetspeed 2? Again I know jack about all things portal so I have no idea... but I would like to have the console get to be more pluggable and dynamic to install plugin bits at runtime. --jason On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent would work. We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks like that might not be a bad thing: Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome on the user and developer mailing lists! I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? Anyone know? --jason
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just needs to do the work. :) I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people developing portal applications. I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back. Thanks, Aaron On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent > would work. > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks like that might not be a bad thing: Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome on the user and developer mailing lists! I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? Anyone know? --jason
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline for making the admin console more pluggable. Jetspeed and Liferay are excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond what is needed for the admin console. David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very interesting conversation. He specifically said that pluto 1.1 supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the admin console pluggable. See: http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3 That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0. Best wishes, Paul On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just needs to do the work. :) I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people developing portal applications. I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back. Thanks, Aaron On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent > > would work. > > > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate > > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks > like that might not be a bad thing: > > > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. > > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome > on the user and developer mailing lists! > > > > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues > with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed > dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? > > Anyone know? > > --jason > > > > >
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
I actually pinged the pluto dev list yesterday: http://www.nabble.com/Pluto-1.0.x-to-1.1-upgrade-guide-%28Apache- Geronimo-Console%29-tf3337657.html If someone who knows more about the details could chime in (Paul? Aaron?) it might help. --jason On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline for making the admin console more pluggable. Jetspeed and Liferay are excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond what is needed for the admin console. David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very interesting conversation. He specifically said that pluto 1.1 supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the admin console pluggable. See: http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3 That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0. Best wishes, Paul On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just needs to do the work. :) I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people developing portal applications. I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back. Thanks, Aaron On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent > > would work. > > > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate > > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks > like that might not be a bad thing: > > > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. > > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome > on the user and developer mailing lists! > > > > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues > with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed > dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? > > Anyone know? > > --jason > > > > >
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
How modular is the existing console code? I'm thinking that some work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing functionality could be split up into smaller domain-specific modules and then deployed into the console app. Right now it looks like a big app, would like to see each of the major bits as a separate module... to help keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code (which I've already started to notice when I looked at some Derby and AMQ-related console bits last). How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? I know that J2 now uses Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1). I'm all for lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if it makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins to plugin/customize their own administration bits. --jason On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline for making the admin console more pluggable. Jetspeed and Liferay are excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond what is needed for the admin console. David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very interesting conversation. He specifically said that pluto 1.1 supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the admin console pluggable. See: http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3 That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0. Best wishes, Paul On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just needs to do the work. :) I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people developing portal applications. I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back. Thanks, Aaron On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent > > would work. > > > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate > > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks > like that might not be a bad thing: > > > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. > > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome > on the user and developer mailing lists! > > > > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues > with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed > dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? > > Anyone know? > > --jason > > > > >
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
Jason Dillon wrote: How modular is the existing console code? I'm thinking that some work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing functionality could be split up into smaller domain-specific modules and then deployed into the console app. Right now it looks like a big app, would like to see each of the major bits as a separate module... to help keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code (which I've already started to notice when I looked at some Derby and AMQ-related console bits last). What is there isn't very modular. We've discussed this before. We need to make the console architecture a bit more modular so that the console management components could added as functions that they manage are added. For example, adding an EJB management portlet with EJB functions to a minimal Geronimo assembly. The down-side is that there are no standards here, so it would be Geronimo specific. How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? I know that J2 now uses Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1). I'm all for lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if it makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins to plugin/customize their own administration bits. I think that we need to keep things light-weight for the web console. We're already catching grief for the footprint. The other aspect here is that users would like portal capability to exploit for their purposes and not just for Geronimo administration. There was some discussion on this in the past too. For customer use something like Jetspeed2 or Liferay may make more sense. For an embedded administration console for Geronimo use Pluto provides the necessary functions with a smaller footprint. IMO the ideal solution would be: - Improve the modularity of the console components such that management could be installed with a function. This is really an orthogonal discussion but was raised here because Pluto 1.1 provides some necessary features to make this a reality. - Continue to ship Geronimo using Pluto (1.1) as the default portal for our administration console. - Provide the capability to install/run the console on other Portal solutions such as JetSpeed2 or Liferay if deployed on Geronimo. I guess in these situations we could support running two portals (one for Geronimo and a user Portal) but that eliminates any possible integration between user portlets and Geronimo admin portlets. Joe --jason On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline for making the admin console more pluggable. Jetspeed and Liferay are excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond what is needed for the admin console. David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very interesting conversation. He specifically said that pluto 1.1 supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the admin console pluggable. See: http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3 That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0. Best wishes, Paul On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just needs to do the work. :) I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people developing portal applications. I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back. Thanks, Aaron On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent > > would work. > > > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate > > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks > like that might not be a bad thing: > > > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. > > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome > on the user and developer mailing lists! > > > > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues > with the c
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
On Mar 3, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Jason Dillon wrote: How modular is the existing console code? I'm thinking that some work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing functionality could be split up into smaller domain- specific modules and then deployed into the console app. Right now it looks like a big app, would like to see each of the major bits as a separate module... to help keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code (which I've already started to notice when I looked at some Derby and AMQ-related console bits last). What is there isn't very modular. We've discussed this before. We need to make the console architecture a bit more modular so that the console management components could added as functions that they manage are added. For example, adding an EJB management portlet with EJB functions to a minimal Geronimo assembly. The down-side is that there are no standards here, so it would be Geronimo specific. Wouldn't using a more a more full-featured portal framework, like Jetspeed2 solve this... or really move the problem from us having to invent a solution to us being able to implement a solution based on another's framework? How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? I know that J2 now uses Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1). I'm all for lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if it makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins to plugin/customize their own administration bits. I think that we need to keep things light-weight for the web console. We're already catching grief for the footprint. Sure... but how much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? If its not that much bigger, and provides things like the modularity/deploy functionality already... then it might end up being less overall code for us to maintain, and would move the impl of the modularity to being specific to that vendors portal framework and not specific to Geronimo. The other aspect here is that users would like portal capability to exploit for their purposes and not just for Geronimo administration. There was some discussion on this in the past too. Right. There is Geronimo admin, and then there is app-admin, and then there is the app itself it is portal-based. My main focus would be on G admin and app-admin, but if the same portal could be used to handle everything (and isn't a massive dog) then... well... why not? For customer use something like Jetspeed2 or Liferay may make more sense. For an embedded administration console for Geronimo use Pluto provides the necessary functions with a smaller footprint. Again... how much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? I'd imagine J2 is bigger... but does anyone know how much bigger? And how much more overhead is our custom framework for modularity (and admin/ customization of those modules) going to add... in terms of resident footprint, lines of code and complexity? IMO... if using a more full-featured portal that fits our licensing needs... that does not add a huge bloat to the assembly/footprint, and provides some solutions to the framework needs we have (and/or adding more useful features)... then seems like that makes more sense. I'm not pushing for one or the other... just trying to gather some real details from folks who know about this better than I do. But so far, I've only heard that one is more lightweight... nothing specific at all :-( So, does anyone know? Does using J2 bloat the distro by like 10mb or something? Or eat up 25m in heap when running, etc... I'm all for light... but if a bit of extra fat adds support OOTB for modularity features, reduces G-specific portal infrastructure, and provides folks with a usable portal system for their own custom administration or simple application, then I'd be happy with a little extra grease on my bacon with my morning eggs. But if its more like adding a tub of butter on my toast... I might not like that so much (as good as it might taste) ;-) --jason
Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
On Mar 3, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: How modular is the existing console code? I'm thinking that some work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing functionality could be split up into smaller domain- specific modules and then deployed into the console app. Right now it looks like a big app, would like to see each of the major bits as a separate module... to help keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code (which I've already started to notice when I looked at some Derby and AMQ-related console bits last). modular == good How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto? A really lot heavier. A reasonable j2 integration will also be a significant effort since its going to involve a big security integration, probably a new jacc provider (or using triplesec), and a lot of other stuff. An unreasonably incomplete integration wouldn't need all of this but j2 has a lot of stuff for laying out apps, administering everything, etc etc etc. I know that J2 now uses Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1). I think they're still on 1.0.1. I'm all for lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if it makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins to plugin/customize their own administration bits. I'm not sure that j2 would really make it a lot easier to add in admin plugins. I think its definitely worth investigating how far pluto 1.1 will get us. thanks david jencks --jason On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline for making the admin console more pluggable. Jetspeed and Liferay are excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond what is needed for the admin console. David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very interesting conversation. He specifically said that pluto 1.1 supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the admin console pluggable. See: http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3 That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0. Best wishes, Paul On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console. Someone just needs to do the work. :) I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be much more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people developing portal applications. I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while back. Thanks, Aaron On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > It's used by pluto for the admin console. No idea if more recent > > would work. > > > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate > > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also looks > like that might not be a bad thing: > > > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x. > > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it more > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to get > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always welcome > on the user and developer mailing lists! > > > > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how much > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues > with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets installed > dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues? > > Anyone know? > > --jason > > > > >
