Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
I'd go further and say that in a perfect world, user documentation shouldn't be needed at all because the software would be so intuitive that users would be able to understand it immediately. Nobody really likes writing documentation... and nobody really likes reading it to get the job done :) Please note I said in a perfect world and I'm only talking about user documentation :) On a more serious (and realistic) note, I agree with Rafaël completely. cheers, Serge... Raphaël Luta wrote: Hema Menon wrote: I tend to agree to the "good developers/bad documentors" theory. However its not always easy to work with lack of/no documentation to a product. Yes, user experience is the best form of documentation. Will try to use Wiki to give more feedback, that could help others too. My point was not to imply that user should document the product with their experiences, simply that user feedback is a great tool for developers to build a *useful* documentation without spending too much energy documenting every features in one go... It enables us to identify where explanations are needed and what can be made more intuitive. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
That is great Ate. We really appreciate what you are doing and again any help that we can do please let us know. Thanks, Archana -Original Message- From: Ate Douma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:03 AM To: Jetspeed Developers List; Jetspeed Users List Subject: Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment) Ate Douma wrote: > I want to propose the following: > - I like to call a vote on merging the J2 deployment_refactoring branch > with > CVS HEAD before the end of *this week* As I have positive responses (and non negative) from at least 3 team members and several from the community too, I'll try to do the merge this evening already and will start with the Fusion synchronization branch tomorrow evening :-) Regards, Ate - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Ate Douma wrote: I want to propose the following: - I like to call a vote on merging the J2 deployment_refactoring branch with CVS HEAD before the end of *this week* As I have positive responses (and non negative) from at least 3 team members and several from the community too, I'll try to do the merge this evening already and will start with the Fusion synchronization branch tomorrow evening :-) Regards, Ate - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Hema Menon wrote: I guess my words didn't come out right either. I have seen many queries in the user list is regarding the build issuses or related to installation be it multiple platform or diff db's. Every user who tries to use this product has to go thru this routine. Based on that, what I meant to say, is that user experiences is very relevant in that case, more for development of a FAQ, similar to what Wiki has right now. So it looks we all agree there. I'm looking forward working on the user feedbacks :) Hema Menon wrote: I tend to agree to the "good developers/bad documentors" theory. However its not always easy to work with lack of/no documentation to a product. Yes, user experience is the best form of documentation. Will try to use Wiki to give more feedback, that could help others too. My point was not to imply that user should document the product with their experiences, simply that user feedback is a great tool for developers to build a *useful* documentation without spending too much energy documenting every features in one go... It enables us to identify where explanations are needed and what can be made more intuitive. -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
I guess my words didn't come out right either. I have seen many queries in the user list is regarding the build issuses or related to installation be it multiple platform or diff db's. Every user who tries to use this product has to go thru this routine. Based on that, what I meant to say, is that user experiences is very relevant in that case, more for development of a FAQ, similar to what Wiki has right now. Hema On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:50:47 +0100, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hema Menon wrote: > > I tend to agree to the "good developers/bad documentors" theory. > > However its not always easy to work with lack of/no documentation to a > > product. Yes, user experience is the best form of documentation. Will > > try to use Wiki to give more feedback, that could help others too. > > > > My point was not to imply that user should document the product with > their experiences, simply that user feedback is a great tool for > developers to build a *useful* documentation without spending too > much energy documenting every features in one go... > It enables us to identify where explanations are needed and what can > be made more intuitive. > > -- > Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java > http://portals.apache.org/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ~~ Hema Menon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Hema Menon wrote: I tend to agree to the "good developers/bad documentors" theory. However its not always easy to work with lack of/no documentation to a product. Yes, user experience is the best form of documentation. Will try to use Wiki to give more feedback, that could help others too. My point was not to imply that user should document the product with their experiences, simply that user feedback is a great tool for developers to build a *useful* documentation without spending too much energy documenting every features in one go... It enables us to identify where explanations are needed and what can be made more intuitive. -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Hi, What you have put up there looks really awesome in the direction of getting Jetspeed 1.6 with fusion out with M2. That would really be ideal since the good work you did on Portal Struts bridges 2.0 can be really used. Any help that is needed to get the Jetspeed 1.6-fusion work going...count me in too along with Hema and Jeff...I can offer some testing help for sure. About the Customiser I agree with Hema and Jeff I too felt lost. My first instinct was to look for the small pencil icon that allowed me to add portlets as it would in 1.5. Anyway Good luck and if there is anything as far as helping just let us know here and we will do our best helping you out. Thanks and Regards, Archana -Original Message- From: Ate Douma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:31 PM To: Jetspeed Users List; Jetspeed Developers List Subject: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment) David Sean Taylor wrote: > Hema Menon wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have been trying to get our Struts application under JS1.6 with >> Fusion. Here's the env >> Latest JS 1.6 build from CVS >> Struts-portal bridge 0.2 version. >> >> I find that the application runs as a standalone using Portal bridges >> 0.2, which means that the portalbridges work as expected outside of >> Jetspeed. However inside Jetspeed, the lookup dispatch action fails. >> THE INTERESTING FACT IS THAT IF I DEPLOY THIS APPLICATION ON JETSPEED >> 2, IT WORKS AS EXPECTED. This makes me believe that the Jetspeed 1.6 >> with Fusion is causing the problem. >> >> I believe there are changes in Struts bridge 0.2 version, which >> require it to run with JS-M2 files. However any time, I build Jetspeed >> 1.6 with fusion, I find that the jetspeed.war contains M1 files. I >> have removed the M1 jars from TOMCAT shared/lib directory. However >> since JS1.6 is being build against M1 jars, I cannot remove what's in >> the jetspeed war. >> >> Here's my situation, Please help >> - All our portlets are JS1.5 compliant and we are quite happy with it >> - We cannot move to JS2 immediately since it means changing to JSR168 >> portlets >> - We need support for Struts portlet >> - JS1.6 WITH FUSION, was the perfect solution for us since it would >> suit all our needs. >> - However, if the struts portlet does not work as expected in JS1.6 >> with Fusion, I don't know what option does we have :( >> >> The changes is Struts-portlet bridge is very very important and neat, >> since it requires minor changes to our Struts application. But JS1.6 >> with Fusion is equally important to us for deploying it. Somehow I >> find that JS1.6 With Fusion on JS2M1 jars does not seem to be running >> right. I am not sure what option do I have :( >> >> Can you please let us know what your plans are regarding to JS1.6 on >> Fusion. Thanks for reading a long email, forgive me, I am desperate :( >> > > Im sorry about your situation. > I recommend running Fusion against the M1 release. > Recently, the dependencies in Fusion were upgraded to match Jetspeed-2's > Spring dependencies. This may be causing some problems. Try checking out > Fusion from the same time as the M1 release. > > Im in a situation here myself and not finding any time for Jetspeed. > 'Up to my ears in it' as they say :( > Really hope to free up next week some, and by the first week in April I > will get Fusion fixed up and released. Im sorry but thats the best I can > do right now. If someone else wants to step up and release Fusion before > then, please do so! > I want to propose the following: - I like to call a vote on merging the J2 deployment_refactoring branch with CVS HEAD before the end of *this week* - if/once the deployment_refactoring branch is merged, I'll step up and work on getting Fusion running again with the current J2 CVS HEAD. I'll try to do so within a few days, (the sooner we decide if/when to merge the branch the more time I will have for it) Precondition for success though is that there are not other blocking issues with Fusion to get it working again. I don't know. Community, David? Getting help from some of you currently working with Fusion might help too: Hema, Jeff? - Hopefully, beginning next week we have both J2 and Fusion in sync again - If all works out well, I'll propose to do a J2-M2 release as well as a Fusion 1.6 release next weekend (!) as I can dedicate most of my time that weekend doing the release. I haven't done a release before though, so getting at least some help from someone from the team with previous experience wil
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
I tend to agree to the "good developers/bad documentors" theory. However its not always easy to work with lack of/no documentation to a product. Yes, user experience is the best form of documentation. Will try to use Wiki to give more feedback, that could help others too. Hema On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:56:31 +0100, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't forget most good developers are pathologically bad documenters :) > > Also, in my experience, the most useful documentation usually comes from > new user/developer experiences discovering the product and describing > their experience and pitfalls encountered. > > If you really want a top notch documentation, please try and use the > wiki to report on your install/config experiences, issues encountered > and things you want to do with J2 but can't find how to do. > This kind of feedback helps us put the emphasis where it's needed, > explaining better the difficult points and not losing too much energy on > documenting obscure things of limited value or miss some major > functional areas. > > Basically, every user can help make the documentation as helpful as > possible by giving feedback on their experience. > Just create a new page in the Jetspeed2 wiki : > > http://wiki.apache.org/portals/Jetspeed2 > > and let us know about it ! > > -- > Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java > http://portals.apache.org/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ~~ Hema Menon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
I definitely fall into the "pathologically bad documenters" category :-) I also agree that user experiences are good to report and read, and I'll try to add to the wiki along with my blog. On the flip side, corporate IT decision makers often don't like to hear that the documentation is only user experiences, and not actual docs from the developers. So I can see where both are very vital to the project On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:56:31 +0100, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff Sheets wrote: > > Ate, > > > > Lastly, documentation is a high concern in my organization, as well as > > others. Some are scared to use a product that is lightly documented, > > so adding more/better/accurate docs would be a tremendous benefit for > > Jetspeed. As the code becomes more stable, I have to agree that this > > would be a well rewarded effort. > > > > Don't forget most good developers are pathologically bad documenters :) > > Also, in my experience, the most useful documentation usually comes from > new user/developer experiences discovering the product and describing > their experience and pitfalls encountered. > > If you really want a top notch documentation, please try and use the > wiki to report on your install/config experiences, issues encountered > and things you want to do with J2 but can't find how to do. > This kind of feedback helps us put the emphasis where it's needed, > explaining better the difficult points and not losing too much energy on > documenting obscure things of limited value or miss some major > functional areas. > > Basically, every user can help make the documentation as helpful as > possible by giving feedback on their experience. > Just create a new page in the Jetspeed2 wiki : > > http://wiki.apache.org/portals/Jetspeed2 > > and let us know about it ! > > -- > Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java > http://portals.apache.org/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Jeff Sheets wrote: Ate, Lastly, documentation is a high concern in my organization, as well as others. Some are scared to use a product that is lightly documented, so adding more/better/accurate docs would be a tremendous benefit for Jetspeed. As the code becomes more stable, I have to agree that this would be a well rewarded effort. Don't forget most good developers are pathologically bad documenters :) Also, in my experience, the most useful documentation usually comes from new user/developer experiences discovering the product and describing their experience and pitfalls encountered. If you really want a top notch documentation, please try and use the wiki to report on your install/config experiences, issues encountered and things you want to do with J2 but can't find how to do. This kind of feedback helps us put the emphasis where it's needed, explaining better the difficult points and not losing too much energy on documenting obscure things of limited value or miss some major functional areas. Basically, every user can help make the documentation as helpful as possible by giving feedback on their experience. Just create a new page in the Jetspeed2 wiki : http://wiki.apache.org/portals/Jetspeed2 and let us know about it ! -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Ate, I am excited about the items that you have listed here, especially about a release date for 1.6 in a short time frame!! I would be happy to help out with testing or bug fixing, just let me know. And Hema, I agree with you that a customizer is badly needed for J2. Coming from J1, we also felt lost without a customizer and cannot use J2 until it is ready. Lastly, documentation is a high concern in my organization, as well as others. Some are scared to use a product that is lightly documented, so adding more/better/accurate docs would be a tremendous benefit for Jetspeed. As the code becomes more stable, I have to agree that this would be a well rewarded effort. Thanks for the forum for my thoughts, -- Jeff On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:09:04 -0900, Hema Menon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ate, > > Its almost the end of the day( a long tiring day, I must add) for my > part of the world, but hey, all of a sudden I feel all awake and > energetic to start another? :) Well, thanks for the response. My > comments are inline. > > > I want to propose the following: > > - I like to call a vote on merging the J2 deployment_refactoring branch > > with CVS HEAD before the end of *this week* - if/once the > > deployment_refactoring branch is merged, I'll step up and work on getting > > Fusion running again with the current J2 CVS HEAD. I'll try to do so within > > a few days, (the sooner we decide if/when to merge the branch the more time > > I will have for it) Precondition for success though is that there are not > > other blocking issues with Fusion to get it working again. I don't know. > > Community, David? > > > I am not sure what's the show stopper for merging the deployment > refactoring branch. As far as I understand from the mails going > around, the changes in the refactoring branch has been breaking some > Fusion stuff. If you think, the first step in getting to resolve that > is to get it the branch merged, maybe it should. Well, I am not aware > of all the implications, David might be able to say which way to go. > > > >Getting help from some of you currently working with Fusion might help > > too: Hema, Jeff? > > > Sure. We could offer whatever help that we can provide. A better > product is the need for the community as a whole:) > > > > - Hopefully, beginning next week we have both J2 and Fusion in sync again - > > If all works out well, I'll propose to do a J2-M2 release as well as a > > Fusion 1.6 release next weekend (!) as I can dedicate most of my time that > > weekend doing the release. > > > Well, that would be awesome! I guess it could be a Fusion with M2 release :) > > > > >I haven't done a release before though, so getting at least some help > > from someone from the team with previous experience will be important I > > think. Furthermore, I'd like to propose to do releases more often (say once > > every month, maybe two) at least until we reach J2-final. > > > I believe incremental releases are a great way to go, but its your > call, since you are the developers(the hardworking group) > > > > The next release (M3) could contain the portlet selector (customizer) > > from David if he won't be able to commit it in time for M2. > > > Customizer, is as I mentioned before, a great tool and a must. I kind > of felt lost without the customizer, trying to deploy a portlet in > JS2. Its great, that David has it almost ready for JS2. > > > >Furthermore, we should try to get most of the outstanding bugs fixed by > > then. I'm willing to work on that a lot. > > - Furthermore, I am going to spend more time in April on writing > > documentation as the community really is in dire need of it. I'd say the M3 > > release should contain enough documentation to allow new users to start > > working with J2 > >on their own. Hopefully, other team members and/or active community > > users can step up too in providing more documentation... > > > Well, you said it! Good documentation is a must. I haven't tried out > much with JS2, since we are still with JS1.6, but is sure willing to > lend a hand to get it going. > > > > > I know this list is quite ambitious, but well, I am ;-) > > > Great! We need the energy. Its always been here, which is why we have > a stable product running on JS 1.5 . > > > > Anyone like to comment? > Jeff, over to you:) > > Thanks! > Hema > > > > > > Regards, Ate > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > ~~ > Hema Menon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional c
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Ate, Sure. That's fine with me. Hema On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:08:05 +0100, Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hema Menon wrote: > > Ate, > > > > > > I am not sure what's the show stopper for merging the deployment > > refactoring branch. As far as I understand from the mails going > > around, the changes in the refactoring branch has been breaking some > > Fusion stuff. If you think, the first step in getting to resolve that > > is to get it the branch merged, maybe it should. Well, I am not aware > > of all the implications, David might be able to say which way to go. > > > Synchronizing the merged deployment refactoring branch with Fusion is what > I'll > take onto myself. But once that's done, I could use help from you and others > for testing the result and detect possible (other) problems to resolve before > we should release Fusion. > > > > >> Getting help from some of you currently working with Fusion might help > >> too: Hema, Jeff? > > > > > > > > Sure. We could offer whatever help that we can provide. A better > > product is the need for the community as a whole:) > > > Great. Keep monitoring the list for progress and I might just mail you > directly > if I have a new Fusion ready for testing. Is that alright with you? > > > > > Well, that would be awesome! I guess it could be a Fusion with M2 release :) > > > Thats what I'm aiming for... > > Ate > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ~~ Hema Menon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Hema Menon wrote: Ate, I am not sure what's the show stopper for merging the deployment refactoring branch. As far as I understand from the mails going around, the changes in the refactoring branch has been breaking some Fusion stuff. If you think, the first step in getting to resolve that is to get it the branch merged, maybe it should. Well, I am not aware of all the implications, David might be able to say which way to go. Synchronizing the merged deployment refactoring branch with Fusion is what I'll take onto myself. But once that's done, I could use help from you and others for testing the result and detect possible (other) problems to resolve before we should release Fusion. Getting help from some of you currently working with Fusion might help too: Hema, Jeff? Sure. We could offer whatever help that we can provide. A better product is the need for the community as a whole:) Great. Keep monitoring the list for progress and I might just mail you directly if I have a new Fusion ready for testing. Is that alright with you? Well, that would be awesome! I guess it could be a Fusion with M2 release :) Thats what I'm aiming for... Ate - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
Ate, Its almost the end of the day( a long tiring day, I must add) for my part of the world, but hey, all of a sudden I feel all awake and energetic to start another? :) Well, thanks for the response. My comments are inline. > I want to propose the following: > - I like to call a vote on merging the J2 deployment_refactoring branch with > CVS HEAD before the end of *this week* - if/once the deployment_refactoring > branch is merged, I'll step up and work on getting Fusion running again with > the current J2 CVS HEAD. I'll try to do so within a few days, (the sooner we > decide if/when to merge the branch the more time I will have for it) > Precondition for success though is that there are not other blocking issues > with Fusion to get it working again. I don't know. Community, David? I am not sure what's the show stopper for merging the deployment refactoring branch. As far as I understand from the mails going around, the changes in the refactoring branch has been breaking some Fusion stuff. If you think, the first step in getting to resolve that is to get it the branch merged, maybe it should. Well, I am not aware of all the implications, David might be able to say which way to go. >Getting help from some of you currently working with Fusion might help > too: Hema, Jeff? Sure. We could offer whatever help that we can provide. A better product is the need for the community as a whole:) > - Hopefully, beginning next week we have both J2 and Fusion in sync again - > If all works out well, I'll propose to do a J2-M2 release as well as a Fusion > 1.6 release next weekend (!) as I can dedicate most of my time that weekend > doing the release. Well, that would be awesome! I guess it could be a Fusion with M2 release :) >I haven't done a release before though, so getting at least some help from > someone from the team with previous experience will be important I think. > Furthermore, I'd like to propose to do releases more often (say once every > month, maybe two) at least until we reach J2-final. I believe incremental releases are a great way to go, but its your call, since you are the developers(the hardworking group) > The next release (M3) could contain the portlet selector (customizer) from > David if he won't be able to commit it in time for M2. Customizer, is as I mentioned before, a great tool and a must. I kind of felt lost without the customizer, trying to deploy a portlet in JS2. Its great, that David has it almost ready for JS2. >Furthermore, we should try to get most of the outstanding bugs fixed by > then. I'm willing to work on that a lot. > - Furthermore, I am going to spend more time in April on writing > documentation as the community really is in dire need of it. I'd say the M3 > release should contain enough documentation to allow new users to start > working with J2 >on their own. Hopefully, other team members and/or active community users > can step up too in providing more documentation... Well, you said it! Good documentation is a must. I haven't tried out much with JS2, since we are still with JS1.6, but is sure willing to lend a hand to get it going. > I know this list is quite ambitious, but well, I am ;-) Great! We need the energy. Its always been here, which is why we have a stable product running on JS 1.5 . > Anyone like to comment? Jeff, over to you:) Thanks! Hema > > Regards, Ate > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ~~ Hema Menon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
J2/Fusion synchronisation and release plan (Was: Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment)
David Sean Taylor wrote: Hema Menon wrote: Hi, I have been trying to get our Struts application under JS1.6 with Fusion. Here's the env Latest JS 1.6 build from CVS Struts-portal bridge 0.2 version. I find that the application runs as a standalone using Portal bridges 0.2, which means that the portalbridges work as expected outside of Jetspeed. However inside Jetspeed, the lookup dispatch action fails. THE INTERESTING FACT IS THAT IF I DEPLOY THIS APPLICATION ON JETSPEED 2, IT WORKS AS EXPECTED. This makes me believe that the Jetspeed 1.6 with Fusion is causing the problem. I believe there are changes in Struts bridge 0.2 version, which require it to run with JS-M2 files. However any time, I build Jetspeed 1.6 with fusion, I find that the jetspeed.war contains M1 files. I have removed the M1 jars from TOMCAT shared/lib directory. However since JS1.6 is being build against M1 jars, I cannot remove what's in the jetspeed war. Here's my situation, Please help - All our portlets are JS1.5 compliant and we are quite happy with it - We cannot move to JS2 immediately since it means changing to JSR168 portlets - We need support for Struts portlet - JS1.6 WITH FUSION, was the perfect solution for us since it would suit all our needs. - However, if the struts portlet does not work as expected in JS1.6 with Fusion, I don't know what option does we have :( The changes is Struts-portlet bridge is very very important and neat, since it requires minor changes to our Struts application. But JS1.6 with Fusion is equally important to us for deploying it. Somehow I find that JS1.6 With Fusion on JS2M1 jars does not seem to be running right. I am not sure what option do I have :( Can you please let us know what your plans are regarding to JS1.6 on Fusion. Thanks for reading a long email, forgive me, I am desperate :( Im sorry about your situation. I recommend running Fusion against the M1 release. Recently, the dependencies in Fusion were upgraded to match Jetspeed-2's Spring dependencies. This may be causing some problems. Try checking out Fusion from the same time as the M1 release. Im in a situation here myself and not finding any time for Jetspeed. 'Up to my ears in it' as they say :( Really hope to free up next week some, and by the first week in April I will get Fusion fixed up and released. Im sorry but thats the best I can do right now. If someone else wants to step up and release Fusion before then, please do so! I want to propose the following: - I like to call a vote on merging the J2 deployment_refactoring branch with CVS HEAD before the end of *this week* - if/once the deployment_refactoring branch is merged, I'll step up and work on getting Fusion running again with the current J2 CVS HEAD. I'll try to do so within a few days, (the sooner we decide if/when to merge the branch the more time I will have for it) Precondition for success though is that there are not other blocking issues with Fusion to get it working again. I don't know. Community, David? Getting help from some of you currently working with Fusion might help too: Hema, Jeff? - Hopefully, beginning next week we have both J2 and Fusion in sync again - If all works out well, I'll propose to do a J2-M2 release as well as a Fusion 1.6 release next weekend (!) as I can dedicate most of my time that weekend doing the release. I haven't done a release before though, so getting at least some help from someone from the team with previous experience will be important I think. - Furthermore, I'd like to propose to do releases more often (say once every month, maybe two) at least until we reach J2-final. The next release (M3) could contain the portlet selector (customizer) from David if he won't be able to commit it in time for M2. Furthermore, we should try to get most of the outstanding bugs fixed by then. I'm willing to work on that a lot. - Furthermore, I am going to spend more time in April on writing documentation as the community really is in dire need of it. I'd say the M3 release should contain enough documentation to allow new users to start working with J2 on their own. Hopefully, other team members and/or active community users can step up too in providing more documentation... I know this list is quite ambitious, but well, I am ;-) Anyone like to comment? Regards, Ate - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment
David, I truly understand. Since your initial plan is to release JS1.6 with M1, I might try that out. I will try it out without mixing M1 & M2 jars and see where it will take me:) Thanks, Hema On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:26:10 -0800, David Sean Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hema Menon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have been trying to get our Struts application under JS1.6 with Fusion. > > Here's the env > > Latest JS 1.6 build from CVS > > Struts-portal bridge 0.2 version. > > > > I find that the application runs as a standalone using Portal bridges > > 0.2, which means that the portalbridges work as expected outside of > > Jetspeed. However inside Jetspeed, the lookup dispatch action fails. > > THE INTERESTING FACT IS THAT IF I DEPLOY THIS APPLICATION ON JETSPEED > > 2, IT WORKS AS EXPECTED. This makes me believe that the Jetspeed 1.6 > > with Fusion is causing the problem. > > > > I believe there are changes in Struts bridge 0.2 version, which > > require it to run with JS-M2 files. However any time, I build Jetspeed > > 1.6 with fusion, I find that the jetspeed.war contains M1 files. I > > have removed the M1 jars from TOMCAT shared/lib directory. However > > since JS1.6 is being build against M1 jars, I cannot remove what's in > > the jetspeed war. > > > > Here's my situation, Please help > > - All our portlets are JS1.5 compliant and we are quite happy with it > > - We cannot move to JS2 immediately since it means changing to JSR168 > > portlets > > - We need support for Struts portlet > > - JS1.6 WITH FUSION, was the perfect solution for us since it would > > suit all our needs. > > - However, if the struts portlet does not work as expected in JS1.6 > > with Fusion, I don't know what option does we have :( > > > > The changes is Struts-portlet bridge is very very important and neat, > > since it requires minor changes to our Struts application. But JS1.6 > > with Fusion is equally important to us for deploying it. Somehow I > > find that JS1.6 With Fusion on JS2M1 jars does not seem to be running > > right. I am not sure what option do I have :( > > > > Can you please let us know what your plans are regarding to JS1.6 on > > Fusion. Thanks for reading a long email, forgive me, I am desperate :( > > > > Im sorry about your situation. > I recommend running Fusion against the M1 release. > Recently, the dependencies in Fusion were upgraded to match Jetspeed-2's > Spring dependencies. This may be causing some problems. Try checking out > Fusion from the same time as the M1 release. > > Im in a situation here myself and not finding any time for Jetspeed. > 'Up to my ears in it' as they say :( > Really hope to free up next week some, and by the first week in April I > will get Fusion fixed up and released. Im sorry but thats the best I can > do right now. If someone else wants to step up and release Fusion before > then, please do so! > > -- > David Sean Taylor > Bluesunrise Software > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [office] +01 707 773-4646 > [mobile] +01 707 529 9194 > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ~~ Hema Menon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment
Hema Menon wrote: Hi, I have been trying to get our Struts application under JS1.6 with Fusion. Here's the env Latest JS 1.6 build from CVS Struts-portal bridge 0.2 version. I find that the application runs as a standalone using Portal bridges 0.2, which means that the portalbridges work as expected outside of Jetspeed. However inside Jetspeed, the lookup dispatch action fails. THE INTERESTING FACT IS THAT IF I DEPLOY THIS APPLICATION ON JETSPEED 2, IT WORKS AS EXPECTED. This makes me believe that the Jetspeed 1.6 with Fusion is causing the problem. I believe there are changes in Struts bridge 0.2 version, which require it to run with JS-M2 files. However any time, I build Jetspeed 1.6 with fusion, I find that the jetspeed.war contains M1 files. I have removed the M1 jars from TOMCAT shared/lib directory. However since JS1.6 is being build against M1 jars, I cannot remove what's in the jetspeed war. Here's my situation, Please help - All our portlets are JS1.5 compliant and we are quite happy with it - We cannot move to JS2 immediately since it means changing to JSR168 portlets - We need support for Struts portlet - JS1.6 WITH FUSION, was the perfect solution for us since it would suit all our needs. - However, if the struts portlet does not work as expected in JS1.6 with Fusion, I don't know what option does we have :( The changes is Struts-portlet bridge is very very important and neat, since it requires minor changes to our Struts application. But JS1.6 with Fusion is equally important to us for deploying it. Somehow I find that JS1.6 With Fusion on JS2M1 jars does not seem to be running right. I am not sure what option do I have :( Can you please let us know what your plans are regarding to JS1.6 on Fusion. Thanks for reading a long email, forgive me, I am desperate :( Im sorry about your situation. I recommend running Fusion against the M1 release. Recently, the dependencies in Fusion were upgraded to match Jetspeed-2's Spring dependencies. This may be causing some problems. Try checking out Fusion from the same time as the M1 release. Im in a situation here myself and not finding any time for Jetspeed. 'Up to my ears in it' as they say :( Really hope to free up next week some, and by the first week in April I will get Fusion fixed up and released. Im sorry but thats the best I can do right now. If someone else wants to step up and release Fusion before then, please do so! -- David Sean Taylor Bluesunrise Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] [office] +01 707 773-4646 [mobile] +01 707 529 9194 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Struts-Bridge & Fusion - David/Ate/others- Pls comment
Hi, I have been trying to get our Struts application under JS1.6 with Fusion. Here's the env Latest JS 1.6 build from CVS Struts-portal bridge 0.2 version. I find that the application runs as a standalone using Portal bridges 0.2, which means that the portalbridges work as expected outside of Jetspeed. However inside Jetspeed, the lookup dispatch action fails. THE INTERESTING FACT IS THAT IF I DEPLOY THIS APPLICATION ON JETSPEED 2, IT WORKS AS EXPECTED. This makes me believe that the Jetspeed 1.6 with Fusion is causing the problem. I believe there are changes in Struts bridge 0.2 version, which require it to run with JS-M2 files. However any time, I build Jetspeed 1.6 with fusion, I find that the jetspeed.war contains M1 files. I have removed the M1 jars from TOMCAT shared/lib directory. However since JS1.6 is being build against M1 jars, I cannot remove what's in the jetspeed war. Here's my situation, Please help - All our portlets are JS1.5 compliant and we are quite happy with it - We cannot move to JS2 immediately since it means changing to JSR168 portlets - We need support for Struts portlet - JS1.6 WITH FUSION, was the perfect solution for us since it would suit all our needs. - However, if the struts portlet does not work as expected in JS1.6 with Fusion, I don't know what option does we have :( The changes is Struts-portlet bridge is very very important and neat, since it requires minor changes to our Struts application. But JS1.6 with Fusion is equally important to us for deploying it. Somehow I find that JS1.6 With Fusion on JS2M1 jars does not seem to be running right. I am not sure what option do I have :( Can you please let us know what your plans are regarding to JS1.6 on Fusion. Thanks for reading a long email, forgive me, I am desperate :( Thanks, Hema ~~ Hema Menon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
