geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:02:27 GMT
I actually pinged the pluto dev list yesterday:

     http://www.nabble.com/Pluto-1.0.x-to-1.1-upgrade-guide-%28Apache- 
Geronimo-Console%29-tf3337657.html

If someone who knows more about the details could chime in (Paul?  
Aaron?) it might help.

--jason


On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:

> I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better baseline
> for making the admin console more pluggable.  Jetspeed and Liferay are
> excellent portals as well but since they are application frameworks in
> their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond
> what is needed for the admin console.
>
> David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance
> in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very
> interesting conversation.  He specifically said that pluto 1.1
> supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the
> admin console pluggable.  See:
>   http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3
> That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation
> while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
> On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more
>> reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console.  Someone just
>> needs to do the work.  :)
>>
>> I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be  
>> much
>> more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the
>> console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people
>> developing portal applications.
>>
>> I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while  
>> back.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>       Aaron
>>
>> On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> > > It's used by pluto for the admin console.  No idea if more recent
>> > > would work.
>> > >
>> > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to investigate
>> >
>> > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with
>> > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also  
>> looks
>> > like that might not be a bad thing:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are
>> > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily
>> > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x.
>> >
>> > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it  
>> more
>> > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier to  
>> get
>> > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your
>> > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always  
>> welcome
>> > on the user and developer mailing lists!
>> >
>> > </snip>
>> >
>> > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how  
>> much
>> > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues
>> > with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets  
>> installed
>> > dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues?
>> >
>> > Anyone know?
>> >
>> > --jason
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


Mime
View raw message