incubator-graffito-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christophe Lombart" <>
Subject Re: j2 page manager status
Date Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:09:16 GMT
Hi Edgar,

> What do you mean with "only"? I'm not sure if I understand you
> correctly. I understand that graffito should provide an implementation
> of the page manager interface in order to provide a set of cms
> services to manage the pages, folders, links, fragments, etc.

ok sorry for the confusion. Yes, this is what I mean.

> Most of the page manager component in j2 seems to be implemented by
> pojos. Can these objects be reused or should they be reimplemented to
> be included as a graffito service?

In theory, pojo can be reused. Graffito is using the Persistence
service to store object in the right content repo. Thoses components
should use it when they want to update, retrieve, ... the J2 content
objects like pages, folders, ...

> I see interfaces for some services under the services package, but I
> don't see any interface specifying what a service is and what's the
> contract to add a new service. What are the requirements to include a
> new service in graffito?.

The is one requirement for building a new service. Add a getter or a
constructor to inject the Persistence service ref. By this way, the
new service can use it to store, retrieve, ...  the content objects.

> I see that the page manager depends heavily on the j2 security
> component. Should graffito reimplement the security service or it can
> depend on the secutiry api to manage the security? In case there's
> need to reimplement the j2 security component, could we use the j2
> secutiry spi or we should implement all the security api?

By default, the Graffito security is using the J2 security components
(which is maybe a problem to use Graffito in another portal
application). So, Graffito is also heavily depending on J2 security
components (maybe too much :-) ).

> I don't see in the api how this service pluggability works. How is it
> supposed a new service will be added at runtime?
This is not yet implemented but it is a nice feature to have.

> I absolutely agree with you, unfortunately I'm still in a stage where
> I'm not sure my questions have sense :(.

Well I understand because this project is not well documented.

View raw message