>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
>> Yep, the current portlet dev is really complicated, but there will be
>> a huge work to do if we decide to switch pluto to other framework like
>> JSF... not sure how much for Pluto2.
>> And I think we don't have enough time for the migration before G2.2
>> release..
>
> I agree. But we need to fix the private repo issue now..... is anyone
> looking at my patch or my patch updated to the latest dojo release?
> Since I don't see problems I'm tempted to apply it. Then we can try to
> figure out something for the 0.4.3 legacy dojo.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> -Rex
>>
>> 2009/7/2 David Jencks <
david_jencks@...
>> <mailto:
david_jencks@...>>
>>
>> If we're going to rewrite bits of the portal, we should consider
>> moving to pluto 2. IIUC there are a bunch of features in portlet
>> 2 spec that may make our portlets simpler. I also think we should
>> investigate frameworks such as jsf or even wicket or something
>> because the current portlet code is ridiculously complicated for
>> what it does. There must be a more sensible way to write a web app.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Joseph Leong wrote:
>>
>>> So unfortunately what happened between Dojo 0.4.3-> Mostly
>>> anything newer especially 1.3.1 is that they had the idea to
>>> classify their libraries to "Dijit" (Widgets) and other
>>> subsections. As such, the porting effort is not small. I believe
>>> the debug-views portlets and such still depend on 0.4.3. At this
>>> point in time, my opinion would be to not try and migrate any
>>> 0.4.3 dependent code. There has been so much change between the
>>> dojo versions that it would be probably simpler and cleaner to
>>> just rewrite these portlets. I think it'd be a good choice to
>>> get rid of the old Dojo libraries once and for all as they add a
>>> bit to the geronimo footprint size.. not to mention there are a
>>> lot more features in the latest Dojo release that can probably
>>> accomplish what you wanted to in the older versions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joseph Leong
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, David Jencks
>>> <
david_jencks@... <mailto:
david_jencks@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Ivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the one is what need, no samples and testcases are
>>>> included. But I found 1.3.1 is released, why not use the
>>>> newest one ?
>>>
>>> Newer would be better if we can get it to work. I set this
>>> up a few days ago and forgot the details... I think that I
>>> saw some problem and wasn't sure what was causing it and
>>> tried changing to an earlier dojo version. I didn't actually
>>> have any reason to think the problem was caused by dojo so
>>> very likely the more recent release should work.
>>>
>>>> And for the legacy dojo 0.4.3, how shall we handle it ? Like
>>>> tomcat, maitaine a our own repo ?
>>>
>>> Ideally I think we would migrate our code to up-to-date dojo.
>>> Unfortunately I have no idea how hard that would be. Does
>>> anyone? If we can't, I think there is some release of some
>>> 0.4.3 dojo, perhaps we can investigate using or repackaging
>>> it.
>>>
>>> There's also dwr.... but I think working on one dependency
>>> at a time will be less confusing.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/7/1 David Jencks <
david_jencks@...
>>>> <mailto:
david_jencks@...>>
>>>>
>>>> In my attempt to remove our svn repo I found that dojo
>>>> releases a dojo-war that looks pretty similar to our
>>>> repacked dojo war. I can make the build work with the
>>>> substitution but I don't know enough about dojo to know
>>>> if/what it breaks. Is there anyone who understands our
>>>> use of dojo well enough to take a look and see if this
>>>> replacement is plausible?
>>>>
>>>> I recall some discussion in the distant past about not
>>>> including all of dojo... I'm not sure if this is still a
>>>> concern, but if the released dojo-war works and is too
>>>> big we can use maven to come up with a smaller war.
>>>>
>>>> See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4723>>>> for my patch.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
