geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul McMahan <paulmcma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: pluto portal for geronimo 2.0
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:43:50 GMT
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> I've been an advocate of this approach as well so thanks for taking  
> the initiative on this.  I'll take a look at what you've done later  
> today.

a significant part of this approach is based on the work you did on  
little G, as well as the opinions you have been sharing with us about  
the need for a more dynamic admin console.  so I'm definitely looking  
forward to more feedback and participation from you!

> There are probably a few issues we'll need to consider if we take  
> this "plugin" approach - splitting the console components from the  
> underlying portal infrastructure:
> - Uniformity between various portal implementations for how to  
> define portlet page content, theme/skin definition, and any portal  
> extensions that we may use.
> - Plugin dependencies based upon type - ie. the admin console  
> plugin would have a pre-req on a "portal" plugin but not  
> necessarily a particular "portal" plugin if we can pull manage to  
> pull off this separation.
>
> Perhaps I'm taking this a bit farther than you intended at the  
> moment. We could certainly just split these components for now and  
> have the admin console tightly dependent upon a Pluto component.   
> That does provide some benefits such as in allowing a user to  
> choose the portal without the admin console and allowing the user  
> to integrate their own portlets with Geronimo admin functions.   
> That's a good step forward. Greater flexibility would be in  
> allowing the user to choose the portal they wish to use but I think  
> this would require more portal standards that do not yet exist.

I wasn't thinking out that far yet.  Like you said more standards   
are probably needed before we could think about making the portal  
container interchangeable without affecting the portlets that have  
already been deployed.  I agree that providing a native portal  
container that geronimo users can deploy standard JSR 168 portlets  
into is a good step forward, and maybe we can make some improvements  
to the administration console in the process.  Later on the portal or  
J2EE community may provide more standardization in this area,  so  
please help us stay on the right track.


Best wishes,
Paul

Mime
View raw message