Which dojo?

[djencks]

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 Xu]

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 ?
And for the legacy dojo 0.4.3, how shall we handle it ? Like tomcat, maitaine a our own repo ?

2009/7/1 David Jencks <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

[djencks]

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@...>

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

[Joseph Leong]

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@...> 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@...>

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

[Joseph Leong]

Unfortunately, I'm a bit tied up. But i think this is a really really great opportunity for someone who wants to dive into the Web 2.0 javascript technologies and get a handle on how to use it. Not to mention, Dojo is one of the most widespread/popular libraries to be acquainted with. (As noted by there constant development)

-Joseph Leong

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Joseph Leong <josephcleong@...> 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@...> 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@...>

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

[djencks]

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@...> 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@...>

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

[Shawn Jiang]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:54 AM, David Jencks <david_jencks@...> wrote:

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.

I can't agree more....  : ) 

 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@...> 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@...>

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

--
Shawn

[Rex Wang-2]

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..

-Rex

2009/7/2 David Jencks <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@...> 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@...>

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

[djencks]

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@...>

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@...> 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@...>

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

[Jay D. McHugh-3]

Hey David,

I'm starting to take a look at it today.

They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the patch
to use it?

Jay

David Jencks wrote:

>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[djencks]

On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:

> Hey David,
>
> I'm starting to take a look at it today.
>
> They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the  
> patch
> to use it?

Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18  
things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)

I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think  
I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and  
haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much  
one way or another.

thanks
david jencks

>
> Jay
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[kevan]

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>
>> Hey David,
>>
>> I'm starting to take a look at it today.
>>
>> They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the  
>> patch
>> to use it?
>
> Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change  
> 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what  
> feature :-)
>
> I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think  
> I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and  
> haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much  
> one way or another.

I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything looked  
good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).

Jay,
If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good to  
you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.

--kevan

[djencks]

Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.

I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I can't  
find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy svn repo.  
I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it that uses the  
maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be packaged  
easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if it works?

-- check out new war project and build it
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
cd geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
mvn clean install

-- modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff so that
geronimo-dojo-legacy is not built
the dojo-legacy-jetty and dojo-legacy-tomcat plugins use the geronimo-
dojo-0.4.3-1.0-SNAPSHOT war file instead of the geronimo-dojo-legacy  
war.

-- build the server and see if the parts that use the legacy dojo  
still work  (debug views??? I'm not sure)

many thanks
david jencks


On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>
>>> Hey David,
>>>
>>> I'm starting to take a look at it today.
>>>
>>> They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the  
>>> patch
>>> to use it?
>>
>> Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change  
>> 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what  
>> feature :-)
>>
>> I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think  
>> I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and  
>> haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much  
>> one way or another.
>
> I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything looked  
> good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).
>
> Jay,
> If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good to  
> you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.
>
> --kevan

[Rex Wang-2]

I'd like to try it :-)
-Rex

2009/7/15 David Jencks <david_jencks@...>

Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.

I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if it works?

-- check out new war project and build it
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
cd geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
mvn clean install

-- modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff so that
geronimo-dojo-legacy is not built
the dojo-legacy-jetty and dojo-legacy-tomcat plugins use the geronimo-dojo-0.4.3-1.0-SNAPSHOT war file instead of the geronimo-dojo-legacy war.

-- build the server and see if the parts that use the legacy dojo still work  (debug views??? I'm not sure)

many thanks
david jencks

On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:

On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:

Hey David,

I'm starting to take a look at it today.

They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the patch
to use it?

Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)

I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much one way or another.

I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything looked good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).

Jay,
If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good to you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.

--kevan

[Rex Wang-2]

tried it.

1.
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
mvn clean install
success!

2.
modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff
the patch in attachment shows the modification.
build successfully

3.
I did not build the entire server, but just remove the old one, and install the new one.
I believe only the debug-views portlets use this legacy dojo, because when I stop the dojo-legacy-tomcat plugin, only the debugviews-console-tomcat web project stopped autoly. and I also searched all the jsps underneath plugins folder in the server build tree, only show the ones from debugviews holding reference to "/dojo/0.4/dojo.js"

results:
Unfortunately, the debugviews portlet don't display corretly...

I make some screen shot. Shall we open a jira for this so that I can upload them, which apparently shows dojo not work correctly?

HTH
Rex.

2009/7/15 Rex Wang <rwonly@...>

I'd like to try it :-)
-Rex

2009/7/15 David Jencks <david_jencks@...>

Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.

I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if it works?

-- check out new war project and build it
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
cd geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
mvn clean install

-- modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff so that
geronimo-dojo-legacy is not built
the dojo-legacy-jetty and dojo-legacy-tomcat plugins use the geronimo-dojo-0.4.3-1.0-SNAPSHOT war file instead of the geronimo-dojo-legacy war.

-- build the server and see if the parts that use the legacy dojo still work  (debug views??? I'm not sure)

many thanks
david jencks

On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:

On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:

Hey David,

I'm starting to take a look at it today.

They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the patch
to use it?

Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)

I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much one way or another.

I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything looked good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).

Jay,
If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good to you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.

--kevan

[kevan]

On Jul 15, 2009, at 3:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.
>
> I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I  
> can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy  
> svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it  
> that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be  
> packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if  
> it works?

There is one other alternative -- and that's rewriting the admin  
console debug views, so that they aren't reliant on 0.4.3. If there's  
someone familiar with Dojo or is interested in learning about Dojo,  
this would be a good project. It would be nice to get rid of 0.4.3,  
altogether...

--kevan

[Rex Wang-2]

agree,  the new 1.3.0 also brings some code change to other portlets(see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4746), in any case, we need to learn it.
I'd like to look into it further.

-Rex

2009/7/15 Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@...>

On Jul 15, 2009, at 3:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:

Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.

I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if it works?

There is one other alternative -- and that's rewriting the admin console debug views, so that they aren't reliant on 0.4.3. If there's someone familiar with Dojo or is interested in learning about Dojo, this would be a good project. It would be nice to get rid of 0.4.3, altogether...

--kevan

[djencks]

On Jul 15, 2009, at 6:31 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 3:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.
>>
>> I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I  
>> can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy  
>> svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it  
>> that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be  
>> packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if  
>> it works?
>
> There is one other alternative -- and that's rewriting the admin  
> console debug views, so that they aren't reliant on 0.4.3. If  
> there's someone familiar with Dojo or is interested in learning  
> about Dojo, this would be a good project. It would be nice to get  
> rid of 0.4.3, altogether...

Of course this would be much much better but I thought that we'd  
investigated this and Joe Leong said it would be a  lot of work and no  
one volunteered to do it?  I thought "easier to start over and use a  
good web framework and portlet 2.0" was the conclusion".

thanks
david jencks

>
> --kevan

[djencks]

On Jul 15, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Rex Wang wrote:

tried it.

1.
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
mvn clean install
success!

2.
modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff
the patch in attachment shows the modification.
build successfully

3.
I did not build the entire server, but just remove the old one, and install the new one.
I believe only the debug-views portlets use this legacy dojo, because when I stop the dojo-legacy-tomcat plugin, only the debugviews-console-tomcat web project stopped autoly. and I also searched all the jsps underneath plugins folder in the server build tree, only show the ones from debugviews holding reference to "/dojo/0.4/dojo.js"

results:
Unfortunately, the debugviews portlet don't display corretly...

I make some screen shot. Shall we open a jira for this so that I can upload them, which apparently shows dojo not work correctly?

Or we could try to fix them :-)

I looked at the two war files and they are different and I wonder what we actually use.

old war (geronimo-dojo-legacy):

  -rw-r--r--    151841  15-May-2007  02:11:02  dojo.js

  -rw-r--r--    326567  15-May-2007  02:11:04  dojo.js.uncompressed.js

  -rw-r--r--      1170  15-May-2007  02:06:02  flash6_gateway.swf

  -rw-r--r--      2364  15-May-2007  02:06:02  iframe_history.html

  -rw-r--r--     11346  15-May-2007  02:06:02  LICENSE

  -rw-r--r--     13133  14-Jul-2009  15:01:02  META-INF/LICENSE

  -rw-r--r--       587  14-Jul-2009  15:01:02  META-INF/NOTICE

  -rw-r--r--      1609  15-May-2007  02:11:32  src/a11y.js

......

everything else is under src/

new war (geronimo-dojo-0.4.3):

just the contents of src from geronimo-dojo-legacy.

So what do we actually use here?  if its just dojo.js we can shrink it by leaving out the uncompressed.js and all the little files.  If its just the little files under src we can use the new war and change the references to leave out the "src/" bit.  Maybe I can come up with an alternate profile to build a war with just dojo.js in it??

wishing I understood javascript delivery even a little bit...

david jencks

HTH
Rex.

2009/7/15 Rex Wang <rwonly@...>

I'd like to try it :-)
-Rex

2009/7/15 David Jencks <david_jencks@...>

Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.

I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if it works?

-- check out new war project and build it
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
cd geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
mvn clean install

-- modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff so that
geronimo-dojo-legacy is not built
the dojo-legacy-jetty and dojo-legacy-tomcat plugins use the geronimo-dojo-0.4.3-1.0-SNAPSHOT war file instead of the geronimo-dojo-legacy war.

-- build the server and see if the parts that use the legacy dojo still work  (debug views??? I'm not sure)

many thanks
david jencks

On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:

On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:

Hey David,

I'm starting to take a look at it today.

They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the patch
to use it?

Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)

I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much one way or another.

I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything looked good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).

Jay,
If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good to you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.

--kevan

<dojo-legacy.patch>

[kevan]

On Jul 15, 2009, at 12:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> Of course this would be much much better but I thought that we'd  
> investigated this and Joe Leong said it would be a  lot of work and  
> no one volunteered to do it?

Right. I don't really know how much work is involved. And nobody  
volunteered. Was just giving somebody another chance to "volunteer". I  
recommend we precede with creating 0.4.3. If a JavaScript coder can  
help with a re-write, then can discuss if it can be done in time for  
2.2...

> I thought "easier to start over and use a good web framework and  
> portlet 2.0" was the conclusion".


It was my impression that was a broader admin console discussion/
conclusion, not specific to the debug views...

--kevan