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 23:39:05 GMT
How modular is the existing console code?  I'm thinking that some  
work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the existing  
functionality could be split up into smaller domain-specific modules  
and then deployed into the console app.  Right now it looks like a  
big app, would like to see each of the major bits as a separate  
module... to help keep things orderly and prevent spaghetti code  
(which I've already started to notice when I looked at some Derby and  
AMQ-related console bits last).

How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto?  I know that J2 now uses  
Pluto (though not sure what version, hopefully its 1.1).  I'm all for  
lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of extra pounds if  
it makes the console application easier for app developers/sysadmins  
to plugin/customize their own administration bits.

--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