geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rex Wang <rwo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Which dojo?
Date Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:18:19 GMT
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..

-Rex

2009/7/2 David Jencks <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>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>
>>
>>> 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