Hi all,
I just wanted to say that I also think that the work that went into
Fusion is important on multiple levels :
- first of all I integrate J2 with my product in a way very similar to
what Fusion does, so if J2 changes a lot, I spend my time refactoring my
code and understanding the changes
I'd like to give Jeff and Hema my support :
first, we've chosen to start with JS1+Fusion as we had two major
requirements : being JSR 168 compliant and have lots of nice features.
This means that we obviously had to go with JS1+fusion (And i'm not
talking about maturity). We plan to migrate in t
I second Hema on this one. It would be great to have
> 1.6.1 release with M2, 1.6.2 with the Final Release
-- Jeff
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:42:28 -0600, Hema Menon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If anyone's asking :) , would be great to have.
> 1.6.1 release with M2, 1.6.2 with the Final Re
Same here...:-). My vote +1.
Regards,
Archana
-Original Message-
From: Hema Menon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Jetspeed Users List
Subject: Re: Jetspeed 1.6-Fusion HELP
If anyone's asking :) , would be great to have.
1.6.1 release wi
If anyone's asking :) , would be great to have.
1.6.1 release with M2, 1.6.2 with the Final Release
Hema
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:35:12 -0800, David Sean Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to figure out if we want to release 1.6 with:
>
> 2.0 M1
> 2.0 M2
> 2.0 Final Release
>
> We co
Ate Douma wrote:
> I know and you know that I started in the new deployment branch
from a clean sheet. I explicitly stated that this would *initially*
result in some features gone missing.
I also said these features have to be recreated once we decide this
proposed new deployment model. Right now
Scott T Weaver wrote:
I'm curious, which deployment refactoring has broken Fusion? Is it the
things in Ate's branch or what is currently working in HEAD?
Both, although the CVS head break is pretty minimal (api signature
changes), whereas the branch is missing entire dependent interfaces and
ext
David Sean Taylor wrote:
Well we now have a new complication with Fusion.
The CVS head for 2.0 will soon change its deployment model.
In the deployment branch, quite a few interfaces that Fusion is
dependent on are now deleted.
The code doesn't even compile against this branch.
Once again, J2 de
ubject: Re: Jetspeed 1.6-Fusion HELP
Archana Turaga wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> What about the database tables those come along with Jetspeed 2.0
> deployment? Are those all needed (they are the bunch of them) or only
> the 2.0 jars are enough to get fusion going?
>
The
I believe the struts-bridge M2 version will work on the M1 release of
Jetspeed 2, but someone will have to verify this for us.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:51:10 -0800, David Sean Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Archana Turaga wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > What about the database tables
Archana Turaga wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
What about the database tables those come along with Jetspeed 2.0
deployment? Are those all needed (they are the bunch of them) or only
the 2.0 jars are enough to get fusion going?
The database tables are included in the Fusion build if you build with
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:53 PM
To: Jetspeed Users List
Subject: Re: Jetspeed 1.6-Fusion HELP
Archana Turaga wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Jeff. But I know in the past they have said that
> when Jetspeed 1.6 is released you do not need to build Jetspeed 2.0.
> Won't
: Jetspeed Users List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jetspeed 1.6-Fusion HELP
David,
I too would like to echo what Jeff is talking about. For us too,
Fusion was a must to get our struts portlet running, otherwise we were
very much happy with what Jetspeed 1.5 offered. We are not yet ready
to m
David,
I too would like to echo what Jeff is talking about. For us too,
Fusion was a must to get our struts portlet running, otherwise we were
very much happy with what Jetspeed 1.5 offered. We are not yet ready
to move to JS2, due to the changes from JS1.5. So Fusion is doing for
us what JS2 has
David,
I definitely vote to support Fusion. My reasoning is that Jetspeed 1
is much more stable and complete than Jetspeed 2, even if the
architecture is lacking. With Jetspeed 1 and the JSR 168 capabilities
of 1.6 Fusion, we would have everything we need until 2 if finally
finished.
And I see
Archana Turaga wrote:
Thanks for the reply Jeff. But I know in the past they have said that
when Jetspeed 1.6 is released you do not need to build Jetspeed 2.0.
Won't that be really convenient...if it works that way?
The 1.6 release will only require jars from Jetspeed 2.0
If that is M1 or M2 is y
Archana Turaga wrote:
Hi,
We really need to know when Jetspeed 1.6 is going to be released. We
need it more so because of its ability to support struts with Fusion and
we are depending on it very heavily for our implementation.
At the most we need to know what binaries from 2.0 are needed to get
fu
eeded (And I really needed it when I worked with Jetspeed 1.5)...helps
in understanding the working of Jetspeed better.
Regards,
Archana
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Sheets [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Jetspeed Users List
Subject: Re: Jetspee
My 1.6 Fusion build required me to add the tables from Jetspeed 1 and
the tables from Jetspeed 2. I didn't try to remove any tables that
might not be needed, but adding all of them works.
Also, I have just downloaded the latest source for Jetspeed 2 and 1,
compiled and deployed Fusion, and everyt
19 matches
Mail list logo
