Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-jetspeed-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 27004 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2002 18:13:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by 209.66.108.5 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2002 18:13:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 23386 invoked by uid 97); 27 Jun 2002 18:13:19 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 23340 invoked by uid 97); 27 Jun 2002 18:13:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jetspeed Developers List" Reply-To: "Jetspeed Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 23320 invoked by uid 98); 27 Jun 2002 18:13:17 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Message-ID: From: "Weaver, Scott" To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' Subject: RE: Question on Muliple portlet instance behavior Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:17:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C21E06.F6BEB2C8" X-Spam-Rating: 209.66.108.5 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: 209.66.108.5 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21E06.F6BEB2C8 Content-Type: text/plain 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: > > > > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > help@jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > help@jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: help@jakarta.apache.org> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21E06.F6BEB2C8--