incubator-graffito-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christophe Lombart <christophe.lomb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Graffito & Jetspeed 2 dev
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:46:14 GMT
Hi Jason,

I think others project have the same problem.  portlet portability is
possible for simple portlets but it becomes more complex when thoses
portlets have to use some portal services (eg. the security
components).

Just one question : can you point me to an open source project that
provide portal and strong CMS features (in java) ? I didn't find one.
That's certainly the big problem in the java community. We are not
working on the same foundation.  this problem is less present in the
python/zope plateform.

Anyway, I'm agree to add more abstraction in the Graffito code.

Thanks,
Christophe



On 11/28/05, Jason Novotny <novotny@aei.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
>     Thanks very much for your summary-- I'm glad I stepped in when I did
> to hopefully inspire you to make graffito a lot more useful than it is
> destined to be now. IMHO, an ongoing problem with many jakarta projects
> is their implicit dependencies on other Jakarta projects. It sort of
> makes a mockery to say "JSR 168 compliant portlets" if it's pretty much
> glued to Jetspeed. Furthermore, it prevents this project from having any
> practical applicability outside the world of Jakarta since Jetspeed2
> represents only a very small user community compared to JBoss, Liferay,
> Exo and vendor portals, which pretty much also limits the extent that
> this codebase can get better over time.
>     I think it's fine if you're using jetspeed 2 security, but you need
> to provide a way to either deploy those components to any portal as part
> of the portlet.war file possibly or simply rely on standard j2ee
> security as dictated by the servlet and portlet specs.
>
>     Cheers, Jason
>
>
> >Supporting different portal servers  requires more complexity and abstraction.
> >Let me resume how Graffito is designed. Than, we can see if it fits to
> >Gridsphere and see together how we can change the Graffito project
> >structure, deployment scripts, ... .
> >If there are too many J2 dependencies,  I'm agree to review them.
> >
> >1. Grafftito contains some demo portlets but also some components.
> >Thoses components can be executed in any IOC container (in  theory :-)
> >). We are currently supporting Spring. If you need another IOC
> >container, you have to check the differencies in term of component
> >lifecycle, tx management, ... In the case of J2 integration, the
> >Graffito components are running inside the portal container and can be
> >used by other portal services (eg. the portal page manager).
> >Futhermore, the Graffito scope is not limited to build portlets. It
> >should be possible to run Graffito components in other kind of
> >applications. That's why those components are important.
> >
> >2. The security depends on  the J2 security components which are very
> >good. Maybe more abstraction is required here. We are using JAAS. Are
> >you supporting JAAS in Gridsphere ?
> >
> >3. The demo portlet (browser) depends also on the j2 API and some J2 services.
> >
> >In my opinion, supporting different portal container is possible but
> >it will take times.
> >Personnally, I have no time to do it now but of course I can help you
> >to modify all subprojects. Let me know if you are interesting to do
> >it. We can make the following plan :
> >1. Review the API and commons subproject : see how to drop the J2 dependencies.
> >2. Review the components subproject wich will be the big job.
> >3. See if the engine is needed.
> >3. Review the portlets.
> >
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >Christophe
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message