Re: JSR 286: Portlet Specification 2.0 (Stefan, please comment!) CORRECTION

[CD...@hannaford.com]

Like you Stefan, I have been doing a lot of multitasking lately. I have a 
one word correction to my response to your email, which I capitalized for 
emphasis (portlet vendors should be portal vendors). Sorry for the 
confusion.

Here is the corrected message:

Stefan,

Thank you for your response. 

It would be a shame to limit EG membership to a single Pluto developer. 
Unlike portal vendor representatives, most active Pluto developers are 
independant entities and represent the portlet development community, 
which are the majority of JSR-168 users. It is important to have a stable 
and functional RI developed in parallel with the development of the 
JSR-286 spec. Having more than one active Pluto developers on the EG would 
facilitate that objective. After all, PORTAL vendors will be most 
interested in refactoring their implementations rather than developing a 
new RI. That is understandable. It is especially important to have more 
than one Pluto member on the EG since the mailing list could becomes 
private if a member objects to a public list (as you mentioned in your 
response to David Sean Taylor). 

I am not suggesting that all Pluto commiters be put on the EG, but that a 
few active commiters be invited. 

I hope you will reconsider your 'single Pluto representative on EG' 
suggestion. 

TIA 
/Craig 





CDoremus@hannaford.com 
12/02/2005 09:22 AM
Please respond to
pluto-dev@portals.apache.org


To
pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
cc

Subject
Re: JSR 286: Portlet Specification 2.0 (Stefan, please comment!)







Hi Stefan, 

Thank you for your response. 

It would be a shame to limit EG membership to a single Pluto developer. 
Unlike portal vendor representatives, most active Pluto developers are 
independant entities and represent the portlet development community, 
which are the majority of JSR-168 users. It is important to have a stable 
and functional RI developed in parallel with the development of the 
JSR-286 spec. Having more than one active Pluto developers on the EG would 
facilitate that objective. After all, portlet vendors will be most 
interested in refactoring their implementations rather than developing a 
new RI. That is understandable. It is especially important to have more 
than one Pluto member on the EG since the mailing list could becomes 
private if a member objects to a public list (as you mentioned in your 
response to David Sean Taylor). 

I am not suggesting that all Pluto commiters be put on the EG, but that a 
few active commiters be invited. 

I hope you will reconsider your 'single Pluto representative on EG' 
suggestion. 

TIA 
/Craig 



Stefan Hepper <st...@apache.org> 
12/01/2005 06:48 AM 

Please respond to
pluto-dev@portals.apache.org


To
Craig Doremus <cr...@maine.com> 
cc
pluto-dev@portals.apache.org 
Subject
Re: JSR 286: Portlet Specification 2.0 (Stefan, please comment!)








Hi Craig,
sorry, I was on vacation the last 5 weeks, getting my new house finished 
and am now trying to catch up with my mail...

My goal is to have the JSR 286 RI developed by the pluto community, and 
yes, everyone can send comments, you don't need to be on the EG for 
that. I'll also try to get out early public drafts as soon as possible 
to give everyone the chance to comment and implement prototypes.

Ulrich will also help to get the RI development done inside the pluto 
community.

I would like to have the EG not too big in order to be effective, 
therefore I would suggest that the pluto community elects one member who 
will represent the pluto community in the JSR 286. What does everyone 
think of this?

The WSRP spec should be out for public review in Jan.

Stefan

Craig Doremus wrote:

>
> Stefan (Hepper), can you comment on the involvement of Pluto Commiters 
> in the development of the Portlet 2.0 (JSR-286) RI?
>
> I imagine all the Pluto committers cannot be on the Expert Group, but 
> I'm sure that some of us (including me) want to be involved with 
> developing the new RI.
>
> Will we be able to contribute to the JSR-286 RI if we are not on the 
> Expert Group?
>
> We will also need to get access to the developing WSRP 2.0 spec since 
> the new Portlet spec will align closely with the new WSRP spec (very 
> good idea, IMHO!). But WSRP 2.0 seems to be still under wraps. Will we 
> be able to take a peak at WSRP 2.0 soon or get a pre-release preview?
>
> TIA
> /Craig
>
>
> Nick Lothian wrote:
>
>> (via http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37818)
>>
>> Are any active committers on Pluto aware of JSR-286?
>>
>> I hadn't heard anything about it.
>>
>> One interesting point:
>>
>> 2.16 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as
>> part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both.
>> Include version information for the profile or platform in your
>> answer.
>>
>> The RI will be implemented inside the open source project Pluto at 
>> Apache.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>