geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <jaydmch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Which dojo?
Date Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:44:40 GMT
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@yahoo.com
>> <mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com>>
>>
>>     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@yahoo.com <mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com>> 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@yahoo.com
>>>>         <mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com>>
>>>>
>>>>             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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message