portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weaver, Scott" <Swea...@rippe.com>
Subject RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
Date Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:17:53 GMT
David,

If we are implementing it as a TurbineService, stop me if I'm wrong here,
there is no need for the ServiceFactory, correct?

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:david@bluesunrise.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:06 PM
> To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
> 
> > You still want to keep the PersistenceService interface as is correct?
> 
> Im not tied to it at all. The interface looks overly complicated with
> the inner Page interface
> Please write a new interface if you think its necessary.
> 
> I would rewrite it as a Turbine service, like every other service in
> Jetspeed (except this one)
> 
> > I will start looking at gutting/rewriting the service.
> 
> Great!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:Sweaver@rippe.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:49 AM
> > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
> >
> >
> > You still want to keep the PersistenceService interface as is correct?
> >
> > One the first suggestion I have would be to replace all the
> > instance of Vector with ArrayList, to improve performance.
> > They did this with Torque and supposedly it garnered them a
> > nice increase in performance.  The only issue I see with this
> > would be if you are betting on those Lists to be threadsafe.
> >
> > I will start looking at gutting/rewriting the service.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:david@bluesunrise.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:29 PM
> > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> > > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
> > >
> > > I wouldn't mind if you rewrote the whole class and threw away the
> > > existing. That is what I was planning on doing. I think
> > > JetspeedPersistenceService is pretty bad
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:Sweaver@rippe.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:29 AM
> > > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> > > > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the response, David.  I am VERY interested in
> > getting it
> > > > work. I'm currently looking at the PersistenceService and
> > its inner
> > > > class, PersistenceService.Page, right now.  Let me now if
> > I'm on the
> > > > right track and I will continue to work on it.  Hopefully, I
> > > > will be able to come up with a suitable patch.
> > > >
> > > > I welcome any pointers you may have.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:david@bluesunrise.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:11 PM
> > > > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> > > > > Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
> > > > >
> > > > > The JetspeedPersistenceService still needs to be updated to
> > > > > support portlet instances. It doesn't consider portlet ids
> > > > > (instances) or non-default pages. Its high on my todo
> > list, unless
> > > > > someone
> > > > else fixes
> > > > > it first...
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:Sweaver@rippe.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:57 AM
> > > > > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> > > > > > Subject: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have noticed some "odd" behavior when it comes to multiple
> > > > > > instance of the same portlet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's say I have a portlet, "MyPortlet", which extends
> > > > > > VelocityPortlet.  It has a single attribute called
> > "test." Now,
> > > > > > I add this portlet to 2 separate panes, pane_1 and
> > pane_2.  My
> > > > > > PSML file reflects that MyPortlet is in fact in both pane_1
> > > > and pane_2,
> > > > > > each instance of MyPortlet has a unique ID value. So far so
> > > > > > good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, this is the part that does not seem right, to me at
> > > > least.  If
> > > > > > I have an action that sets the value of the attribute "test",
> > > > > > regardless of which instance of MyPortlet calls the
> > > > action the value
> > > > > > is both stored and retrieved from the first (as it appears in
> > > > > > the PSML file) instance of MyPortlet in pane_1.  The second
> > > > instance of
> > > > > > MyPortlet in pane_2 never gets or sets its own attribute
> > > > "test", and
> > > > > > it always refers to the attribute "test" in the first
> > instance
> > > > > > of MyPortlet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before I dig any deeper I need to ask, "Is this correct
> > > > behavior for
> > > > > > multiple instances of the same portlet?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm using the most current CVS HEAD for 1.3a3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> > > > > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> > > > > help@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> > > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> > > help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message