geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Which dojo?
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:54:07 GMT
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.

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