geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Which dojo?
Date Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:59:16 GMT

On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:

> 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?

Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18  
things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)

I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think  
I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and  
haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much  
one way or another.

thanks
david jencks
>
> 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