geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Which dojo?
Date Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:28:15 GMT

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.

david jencks

> -Rex
> 2009/7/2 David Jencks <>
> 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  
>> <> 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 <>
>>> 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 for my  
>>> patch.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> -- 
>>> Ivan

View raw message