geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sachin Patel <sppat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Remaining 1.1 Issues
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 00:51:45 GMT
+1 for #2

On May 23, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> So what alan is point out is I just suggested we add one more  
> feature.  I agree that this is another feature, so what do we want  
> to do?  I think we have three choices:
>
> 1) My idea below, isolate the broken porlets to an "experimental"  
> section
>
> 2) Just remove the broken portlets
>
> 3) Fix the broken portlets
>
>
> I'm +1 on option 1 or 2.  I don't care which option we choose.
>
> -dain
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> /me mumbles something about roses...
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> How about we create an "experimental" section of the console  
>>> menu, that only displays if you click the "show experimental"  
>>> link (I'd guess it can all be done with java script on the  
>>> browser side).  I remember for 1.0 we removed a lot of portlets,  
>>> but I think it would be ok to include most of them as long as we  
>>> set the expectation that they are not finished works.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On May 22, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here are the things that I still want to squeeze into 1.1:
>>>> - fix console JMS to accept new providers at runtime
>>>> - fix console security realms to accept new providers at runtime
>>>> - add a missing Geronimo security provider to console security  
>>>> realms
>>>> - fix hot deploy dir so it notices files updated while the  
>>>> server was
>>>> down and deletes files if they are undeployed some other way
>>>>
>>>> There are also AFAIK a number of not-yet-applied patches to review.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    Aaron
>>>
>


-sachin



Mime
View raw message