You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/17 17:40:08 UTC
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Congratulations!
So what is the verdict? Should we move portlet support back into
trunk? Or is this something that should be done after 1.3 final has
been released?
Based on the number of bugs still open, I'm reluctant to add another
feature into core that may introduce bugs. But I don't want the
portlet support to stay out of trunk for too long, otherwise it will
be quite some effort *again* to upgrade the branch...
So what shall we do?
Martijn
On 9/17/07, Ate Douma (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
>
> Ate Douma resolved WICKET-647.
> ------------------------------
>
> Resolution: Fixed
>
> With now the last subtask WICKET-658 resolved, I think the overall task of providing initial portlet support for Wicket is complete and usable enough for integrating in the Wicket trunk.
>
> > New Wicket Portlet support
> > --------------------------
> >
> > Key: WICKET-647
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647
> > Project: Wicket
> > Issue Type: New Feature
> > Components: wicket-portlet
> > Affects Versions: 1.3.0-beta2, 1.3.0-beta3
> > Environment: Jetspeed-2.1.2, Tomcat 5.5, Servlet API 2.4, JDK 1.4 & Java 5
> > Reporter: Ate Douma
> > Assignee: Ate Douma
> >
> > I'm providing a new solution for Wicket Portlet support, see also my initial proposal on the wicket-dev list: http://www.nabble.com/A-new-proposal-for-Wicket-Portlet-support-tf3836652.html
> > As this solution will require a few (but not very much) changes to Wicket core, I'll create a separate branch first to let everyone involved review and test it out.
> > I'll also create separate sub tasks in JIRA to record the changes required and the new features provided so each can be reviewed individually and we can have step-by-step discussions how to proceed in bringing this solution into the main trunk.
> > Note: as current Wicket development is getting close to the 1.3.0 release, I don't expect all of this to be merged into the trunk until after the 1.3.0 release.
> > But some of my proposed changes really are very light and non-intrusive, so I can imagine (and hope) those can be integrated in the trunk even before the 1.3.0 release.
> > That definitely would make it easier for me to provide portlet support to my own development team using the wicket core trunk and only a few additional patches.
> >
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>>> So what shall we do?
>> Once I have the JIRA issue for merging portlet support back into trunk ready, you can all review it and if I don't hear any objections soon, I'll ask for a
>> vote, alright?
>
> Sounds like a plan. Though I would like it to make it into beta 4 if
> we are going to include it. After beta4 we should ship RC's and get it
> over with.
I just created the JIRA issue, WICKET-983, and I'll try to be as quick as possible.
I probably won't be able to provide all the review patches this evening anymore and tomorrow I have a very busy day (rebuilding +/-50% of our house is starting
this Wednesday) but I'll do my best :)
Ate
>
> Martijn
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 9/17/07, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> > So what shall we do?
> Once I have the JIRA issue for merging portlet support back into trunk ready, you can all review it and if I don't hear any objections soon, I'll ask for a
> vote, alright?
Sounds like a plan. Though I would like it to make it into beta 4 if
we are going to include it. After beta4 we should ship RC's and get it
over with.
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Congratulations!
Thanks :)
>
> So what is the verdict? Should we move portlet support back into
> trunk? Or is this something that should be done after 1.3 final has
> been released?
I've send out a separate message to the users list ealier in which I made clear I'd like it to be done before 1.3.0 final.
>
> Based on the number of bugs still open, I'm reluctant to add another
> feature into core that may introduce bugs.
I understand that and I do want the portlet specific changes properly reviewed before I would commit them to trunk.
As I explained earlier, I'll create a separate JIRA issue for this with the needed wicket core changes as patches for easy review.
If you see anything you don't like or would have chosen a different solution, please bring it up so we can discuss it.
> But I don't want the
> portlet support to stay out of trunk for too long, otherwise it will
> be quite some effort *again* to upgrade the branch...
Right, exactly my thinking. Bringing my initial portlet-support branch back in line with the -beta3 release already wasn't really a nice experience.
I'd rather not have to repeat that over and over again.
>
> So what shall we do?
Once I have the JIRA issue for merging portlet support back into trunk ready, you can all review it and if I don't hear any objections soon, I'll ask for a
vote, alright?
Ate
>
> Martijn
>
> On 9/17/07, Ate Douma (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
>>
>> Ate Douma resolved WICKET-647.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Resolution: Fixed
>>
>> With now the last subtask WICKET-658 resolved, I think the overall task of providing initial portlet support for Wicket is complete and usable enough for integrating in the Wicket trunk.
>>
>>> New Wicket Portlet support
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: WICKET-647
>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647
>>> Project: Wicket
>>> Issue Type: New Feature
>>> Components: wicket-portlet
>>> Affects Versions: 1.3.0-beta2, 1.3.0-beta3
>>> Environment: Jetspeed-2.1.2, Tomcat 5.5, Servlet API 2.4, JDK 1.4 & Java 5
>>> Reporter: Ate Douma
>>> Assignee: Ate Douma
>>>
>>> I'm providing a new solution for Wicket Portlet support, see also my initial proposal on the wicket-dev list: http://www.nabble.com/A-new-proposal-for-Wicket-Portlet-support-tf3836652.html
>>> As this solution will require a few (but not very much) changes to Wicket core, I'll create a separate branch first to let everyone involved review and test it out.
>>> I'll also create separate sub tasks in JIRA to record the changes required and the new features provided so each can be reviewed individually and we can have step-by-step discussions how to proceed in bringing this solution into the main trunk.
>>> Note: as current Wicket development is getting close to the 1.3.0 release, I don't expect all of this to be merged into the trunk until after the 1.3.0 release.
>>> But some of my proposed changes really are very light and non-intrusive, so I can imagine (and hope) those can be integrated in the trunk even before the 1.3.0 release.
>>> That definitely would make it easier for me to provide portlet support to my own development team using the wicket core trunk and only a few additional patches.
>>>
>> --
>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>> -
>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo>.
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
> It's been in there for a while though, and the impact on the Wicket
> core project should be nill. The only thing that we have to take into
> account with the Wicket core project is that we shouldn't break Ate's
> rules, but I think that could only happen when we would introduce new
> functionality or do big internal refactoring.
>
To be more specific, I was referring to the changes listed in WICKET-983.
It seems that those changes are quite fundamental and have never been
included in any previous beta.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--jira--Resolved%3A-%28WICKET-647%29-New-Wicket-Portlet-support-tf4467600.html#a12749800
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Just my 2 cts, /if/ we are going to include portlet support it should
go into beta 4. Otherwise we should postpone it until TNG (which would
deprive JDK 1.4 users of this portlet support)
Martijn
On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
>
> i.e.
> - 1.3 comes out
> - 1.3.1 comes out
> - we branch 1.3.x
> - trunk becomes Wicket TNG
> - we commit Portlet changes
> - we release Wicket TNG M1
> - we commit JDK 1.5 changes
> - we release Wicket TNG M2
> - we fix the bugs
> - we release Wicket TNG final
>
> also, I'm very -1 on adding such a thing on a minor release which
> should only fix bugs, and not add a major feature.
>
> Martijn
>
> /me proposes Wicket The Next Generation as the working title for JDK
> 1.5 development
>
>
> On 9/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > which will be 1.3.1... so it should be fine
> >
> > get 1.3 out
> > commit portlets
> > that will become 1.3.1 along with other bugfixes....
> >
> > then on to the yet unnamed "wicket next" :)
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > > > So I think we should merge the changes into the new 1.4 branch instead.
> > > > This will, of course, lock out people who are using JDK 1.4 with
> > > > portlets, but then, you can't please everyone.
> > >
> > > I take it you mean the next version of wicket after we finalized 1.3?
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > --
> > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> M1 can be considered stable? It is 1.3.1 + portlets support.
>
> It is less fortunate than having it in 1.3 for sure, but I don't want
> portlets support to be added in 1.3.1, 1.3.2 or 1.3.3. If it goes into
> 1.3, then it has to be *now* (== beta4). The whole idea of a 1.3.1 is
> that things become more stable, not less.
I agree fully.
And of course I'm for adding it to beta4, not a yet unknown (especially in time) TNG M1.
Ate
>
> Martijn
>
> On 9/18/07, Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
>>>
>>> i.e.
>>> - 1.3 comes out
>>> - 1.3.1 comes out
>>> - we branch 1.3.x
>>> - trunk becomes Wicket TNG
>>> - we commit Portlet changes
>>> - we release Wicket TNG M1
>> But this:
>>
>> - we commit JDK 1.5 changes
>> - we release Wicket TNG M2
>> - we fix the bugs
>>
>> can take a very long time. Which means we won't have a stable release
>> with portlet support for quite some time, even though, in fact, we
>> can.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by David Bernard <dw...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Disclamer : I've no portlet's interest, I'm only a wicket's user.
As an "external" reader of this thread, what I understand?
* pro : porlet integration, it's a good time to do it
* con : the changeset is very risky and it's to late for 1.3
a classical time to market/features dilemma ;-)
Why not use this "opportunity" to add "missing" tests about every changes required by Ate ?
1/
* Ate could write tests that show its needs
* Others could write unit/regression tests
2/
* restart the discussion of adding portlet support in 1.3 final or 1.4 (= 1.3 + fix + porlet)
* do a vote, may be a users'vote
With adding test, everyone will have a better understand/vision of the required changes, and will be more confiant into the resulting.
And the final Wicket 1.3 (w/o portlet) will be better.
But I've some time and will be happy to contribute to Wicket with some tests (and learn more Wicket :-)).
As a wicket users, I'm not against a beta 4 and beta 5. It's a risk that every developper using beta version of OSS take.
my 2 cents.
Ate Douma wrote:
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The portlets support is embedded into wicket itself, at least to my
>>> understanding of Ate's changes: you can run normal pages as portlets.
>>> So there would not be a separate wicket-portlets project, possibly
>>> only a specific examples project.
>>
>> O yes, forgot about that. We don't need the portlet API dependency
>> either, right?
> No, it is defined as a dependency of course, but optional at runtime.
> You can try this out yourself with the wicket-examples.war I build from
> the portlet-support branch, you can deploy it in a normal, non-portlet
> container too.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~ate/wicket/wicket-examples.war
>
> Ate
>
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The portlets support is embedded into wicket itself, at least to my
>> understanding of Ate's changes: you can run normal pages as portlets.
>> So there would not be a separate wicket-portlets project, possibly
>> only a specific examples project.
>
> O yes, forgot about that. We don't need the portlet API dependency
> either, right?
No, it is defined as a dependency of course, but optional at runtime.
You can try this out yourself with the wicket-examples.war I build from the portlet-support branch, you can deploy it in a normal, non-portlet container too.
http://people.apache.org/~ate/wicket/wicket-examples.war
Ate
>
> Eelco
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The portlets support is embedded into wicket itself, at least to my
> understanding of Ate's changes: you can run normal pages as portlets.
> So there would not be a separate wicket-portlets project, possibly
> only a specific examples project.
O yes, forgot about that. We don't need the portlet API dependency
either, right?
Eelco
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> The portlets support is embedded into wicket itself, at least to my
> understanding of Ate's changes: you can run normal pages as portlets.
> So there would not be a separate wicket-portlets project, possibly
> only a specific examples project.
Correct.
>
> That it still has rough edges can be noted in the release notes. It is
> after all the first release of such an endeavour.
Correct again :)
>
> I don't mind it being part of Wicket, but it needs to be supported
> well (previous portlet support was not, therefore it got moved to
> wicketstuff). I think more contributors than Ate need to have an
> interest in supporting this. I am glad that JetSpeed wants to use
> Wicket in its admin console, so our exposure there would be bigger,
> thus attracting more potential developers. I'd hate to see the portlet
> support extracted again.
Not if I can help it this time :)
You can count on my continued involvement and support for Wicket and portlet support in particular, at least if we manage to get this into the trunk of course.
My work and responsibilities has changed quite a lot since my initial attempt to support portlets back in 2005 (which was a failure, I know).
I've a whole company behind me now who wants proper Wicket portlet support, and I'm responsible for both our (Jetspeed based) portal product and a whole lot of
other development activities.
Once we get portlet support in the trunk and released, I know for a fact not only my own company, but a bunch of others too will start (trying) to use Wicket
for portlet development. Additional contributers then will come for sure.
But to make this happen, it needs to become part of the trunk someday soon, no question about it.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On 9/18/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I haven't followed the technical discussion on the portlets, so maybe this
>>> is a silly question: But why can't portlets be a separate project? At least
>>> for now? So we could add a wicket-portlets-1.3.0, try to get a 1.3.0 release
>>> out the door and label 1.3 as "Wicket, now with experimental portlet
>>> support". Because unless we postpone the 1.3 release the portlet support
>>> would never be anything other than experimental.
>> It is/ will be. The problem we're discussing here is that portlet
>> support needs a couple of changes in the core project to function
>> well.
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
The portlets support is embedded into wicket itself, at least to my
understanding of Ate's changes: you can run normal pages as portlets.
So there would not be a separate wicket-portlets project, possibly
only a specific examples project.
That it still has rough edges can be noted in the release notes. It is
after all the first release of such an endeavour.
I don't mind it being part of Wicket, but it needs to be supported
well (previous portlet support was not, therefore it got moved to
wicketstuff). I think more contributors than Ate need to have an
interest in supporting this. I am glad that JetSpeed wants to use
Wicket in its admin console, so our exposure there would be bigger,
thus attracting more potential developers. I'd hate to see the portlet
support extracted again.
Martijn
On 9/18/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I haven't followed the technical discussion on the portlets, so maybe this
> > is a silly question: But why can't portlets be a separate project? At least
> > for now? So we could add a wicket-portlets-1.3.0, try to get a 1.3.0 release
> > out the door and label 1.3 as "Wicket, now with experimental portlet
> > support". Because unless we postpone the 1.3 release the portlet support
> > would never be anything other than experimental.
>
> It is/ will be. The problem we're discussing here is that portlet
> support needs a couple of changes in the core project to function
> well.
>
> Eelco
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
> I haven't followed the technical discussion on the portlets, so maybe this
> is a silly question: But why can't portlets be a separate project? At least
> for now? So we could add a wicket-portlets-1.3.0, try to get a 1.3.0 release
> out the door and label 1.3 as "Wicket, now with experimental portlet
> support". Because unless we postpone the 1.3 release the portlet support
> would never be anything other than experimental.
It is/ will be. The problem we're discussing here is that portlet
support needs a couple of changes in the core project to function
well.
Eelco
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Frank Bille wrote:
> I haven't followed the technical discussion on the portlets, so maybe this
> is a silly question: But why can't portlets be a separate project?
It can't.
The way I set up portlet-support: as a transparent "bridge" which allows developing Wicket portlets just as normal servlet based applications (and even allow
"dual" usage, e.g. deploy either as servlet, portlet or both), it really requires integration support from within wicket core itself.
> At least for now? So we could add a wicket-portlets-1.3.0, try to get a 1.3.0 release
> out the door and label 1.3 as "Wicket, now with experimental portlet
> support". Because unless we postpone the 1.3 release the portlet support
> would never be anything other than experimental.
That is exactly what I want to prevent.
Unless we provide portlet-support from trunk and with the next release, it will be very difficult if not impossible to get other developers/teams involved and
start using Wicket for portlet development anytime soon.
Although I don't want to use it as main argument for merging portlet-support to trunk now, I know several portlet projects are currently considering to use
either Wicket or JSF. If portlet-support is going to be delayed to after the 1.3 release, Wicket very likely will be dismissed (Jetspeed-2 being on of these
projects).
Ate
>
> Frank
>
>
> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> M1 can be considered stable? It is 1.3.1 + portlets support.
>>
>> It is less fortunate than having it in 1.3 for sure, but I don't want
>> portlets support to be added in 1.3.1, 1.3.2 or 1.3.3. If it goes into
>> 1.3, then it has to be *now* (== beta4). The whole idea of a 1.3.1 is
>> that things become more stable, not less.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> On 9/18/07, Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
>>>>
>>>> i.e.
>>>> - 1.3 comes out
>>>> - 1.3.1 comes out
>>>> - we branch 1.3.x
>>>> - trunk becomes Wicket TNG
>>>> - we commit Portlet changes
>>>> - we release Wicket TNG M1
>>> But this:
>>>
>>> - we commit JDK 1.5 changes
>>> - we release Wicket TNG M2
>>> - we fix the bugs
>>>
>>> can take a very long time. Which means we won't have a stable release
>>> with portlet support for quite some time, even though, in fact, we
>>> can.
>>>
>>> -Matej
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
>> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
>> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
>>
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>.
I haven't followed the technical discussion on the portlets, so maybe this
is a silly question: But why can't portlets be a separate project? At least
for now? So we could add a wicket-portlets-1.3.0, try to get a 1.3.0 release
out the door and label 1.3 as "Wicket, now with experimental portlet
support". Because unless we postpone the 1.3 release the portlet support
would never be anything other than experimental.
Frank
On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> M1 can be considered stable? It is 1.3.1 + portlets support.
>
> It is less fortunate than having it in 1.3 for sure, but I don't want
> portlets support to be added in 1.3.1, 1.3.2 or 1.3.3. If it goes into
> 1.3, then it has to be *now* (== beta4). The whole idea of a 1.3.1 is
> that things become more stable, not less.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 9/18/07, Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
> > >
> > > i.e.
> > > - 1.3 comes out
> > > - 1.3.1 comes out
> > > - we branch 1.3.x
> > > - trunk becomes Wicket TNG
> > > - we commit Portlet changes
> > > - we release Wicket TNG M1
> >
> > But this:
> >
> > - we commit JDK 1.5 changes
> > - we release Wicket TNG M2
> > - we fix the bugs
> >
> > can take a very long time. Which means we won't have a stable release
> > with portlet support for quite some time, even though, in fact, we
> > can.
> >
> > -Matej
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
M1 can be considered stable? It is 1.3.1 + portlets support.
It is less fortunate than having it in 1.3 for sure, but I don't want
portlets support to be added in 1.3.1, 1.3.2 or 1.3.3. If it goes into
1.3, then it has to be *now* (== beta4). The whole idea of a 1.3.1 is
that things become more stable, not less.
Martijn
On 9/18/07, Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
> >
> > i.e.
> > - 1.3 comes out
> > - 1.3.1 comes out
> > - we branch 1.3.x
> > - trunk becomes Wicket TNG
> > - we commit Portlet changes
> > - we release Wicket TNG M1
>
> But this:
>
> - we commit JDK 1.5 changes
> - we release Wicket TNG M2
> - we fix the bugs
>
> can take a very long time. Which means we won't have a stable release
> with portlet support for quite some time, even though, in fact, we
> can.
>
> -Matej
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
>
> i.e.
> - 1.3 comes out
> - 1.3.1 comes out
> - we branch 1.3.x
> - trunk becomes Wicket TNG
> - we commit Portlet changes
> - we release Wicket TNG M1
But this:
- we commit JDK 1.5 changes
- we release Wicket TNG M2
- we fix the bugs
can take a very long time. Which means we won't have a stable release
with portlet support for quite some time, even though, in fact, we
can.
-Matej
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
I think Al meant the jdk 1.5 version of wicket, which won't be 1.3.1
i.e.
- 1.3 comes out
- 1.3.1 comes out
- we branch 1.3.x
- trunk becomes Wicket TNG
- we commit Portlet changes
- we release Wicket TNG M1
- we commit JDK 1.5 changes
- we release Wicket TNG M2
- we fix the bugs
- we release Wicket TNG final
also, I'm very -1 on adding such a thing on a minor release which
should only fix bugs, and not add a major feature.
Martijn
/me proposes Wicket The Next Generation as the working title for JDK
1.5 development
On 9/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> which will be 1.3.1... so it should be fine
>
> get 1.3 out
> commit portlets
> that will become 1.3.1 along with other bugfixes....
>
> then on to the yet unnamed "wicket next" :)
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > > So I think we should merge the changes into the new 1.4 branch instead.
> > > This will, of course, lock out people who are using JDK 1.4 with
> > > portlets, but then, you can't please everyone.
> >
> > I take it you mean the next version of wicket after we finalized 1.3?
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
> >
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
This sounds reasonable for me, as long as we can afford such thing in
a minor release.
-Matej
On 9/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> which will be 1.3.1... so it should be fine
>
> get 1.3 out
> commit portlets
> that will become 1.3.1 along with other bugfixes....
>
> then on to the yet unnamed "wicket next" :)
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > > So I think we should merge the changes into the new 1.4 branch instead.
> > > This will, of course, lock out people who are using JDK 1.4 with
> > > portlets, but then, you can't please everyone.
> >
> > I take it you mean the next version of wicket after we finalized 1.3?
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
> >
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
which will be 1.3.1... so it should be fine
get 1.3 out
commit portlets
that will become 1.3.1 along with other bugfixes....
then on to the yet unnamed "wicket next" :)
-igor
On 9/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > So I think we should merge the changes into the new 1.4 branch instead.
> > This will, of course, lock out people who are using JDK 1.4 with
> > portlets, but then, you can't please everyone.
>
> I take it you mean the next version of wicket after we finalized 1.3?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> So I think we should merge the changes into the new 1.4 branch instead.
> This will, of course, lock out people who are using JDK 1.4 with
> portlets, but then, you can't please everyone.
I take it you mean the next version of wicket after we finalized 1.3?
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
>> Gwyn Evans wrote:
>>> As a result, I don't know where the Portlet changes should go - I can
>>> understand that it would be good to get them in 1.3, but my feeling
>>> remains that at this stage of a release, they shouldn't be added.
>> For what it's worth, I agree with this, even though I wish I didn't. :-(
>>
>> The portlet changes /do/ touch some fundamental bits of Wicket, and past
>> experience says that we'll introduce some more bugs and instability
>> doing this. I'm very reluctant to shoehorn them in this late in the game
>
> Hmmm. I should have read better, as I thought that all the issues Ate
> needs fixed were already implemented and for us it is just a matter of
> playing with those rules from now on.
So you're saying I'd better should have committed those changes to the trunk (sneakingly)?
:)
No, of course not, I'm doing my best to follow best (Apache) procedures here and gain all of your trust in a proper way!
>
> Indeed, things like changes in how URLs are handled have been big bug
> generators in the past, so this might be risky.
Well, "might" isn't exactly something I can respond to.
I don't think I changed much, if anything, which actually change how URLs are handled in a servlet environment.
As I also responded to Gwyn, please do review my proposed changes and if you see anything you're concerned about I'm all ears.
Ate
>
> Eelco
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> Gwyn Evans wrote:
> > As a result, I don't know where the Portlet changes should go - I can
> > understand that it would be good to get them in 1.3, but my feeling
> > remains that at this stage of a release, they shouldn't be added.
>
> For what it's worth, I agree with this, even though I wish I didn't. :-(
>
> The portlet changes /do/ touch some fundamental bits of Wicket, and past
> experience says that we'll introduce some more bugs and instability
> doing this. I'm very reluctant to shoehorn them in this late in the game
Hmmm. I should have read better, as I thought that all the issues Ate
needs fixed were already implemented and for us it is just a matter of
playing with those rules from now on.
Indeed, things like changes in how URLs are handled have been big bug
generators in the past, so this might be risky.
Eelco
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com>.
Gwyn Evans wrote:
> As a result, I don't know where the Portlet changes should go - I can
> understand that it would be good to get them in 1.3, but my feeling
> remains that at this stage of a release, they shouldn't be added.
For what it's worth, I agree with this, even though I wish I didn't. :-(
The portlet changes /do/ touch some fundamental bits of Wicket, and past
experience says that we'll introduce some more bugs and instability
doing this. I'm very reluctant to shoehorn them in this late in the game
- it would certainly necessitate a beta5, which I thought we were
trying to avoid?
So I think we should merge the changes into the new 1.4 branch instead.
This will, of course, lock out people who are using JDK 1.4 with
portlets, but then, you can't please everyone.
Al
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Gwyn Evans <gw...@gmail.com>.
On Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 5:18:16 AM, Eelco <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the issue is how much extra time is needed to wait until the
>> merged result can be proven in the wild to be stable enough.
>> It may not affect only those who write portlets, but also those who
>> don't.
>>
>> Frankly, I seldom see such significant new features being introduced
>> in a beta stage.
> It's been in there for a while though, and the impact on the Wicket
> core project should be nill. The only thing that we have to take into
> account with the Wicket core project is that we shouldn't break Ate's
> rules, but I think that could only happen when we would introduce new
> functionality or do big internal refactoring.
The existing code's been there, true, but that's not the problem here.
While I'm sympathetic about the desire to get Portlet support into
trunk, it seems to me that the fundamental problem is that we're not
taking the task of getting 1.3 released seriously. As a result, we're
entertaining the question of making major changes to the codebase when
we should be locking it down except for fixes to release-stopping
bugs.
As a side-effect of this willingness to accept changes, Ate's
(justified) concern is that before the release, the 1.3 trunk will
change so significantly that his work becomes useless.
My preference would be to have a brake on the trunk enhancements, to
stop adding functionality and to focus on getting a 1.3 out - frankly,
getting to a Beta-4 release seems to me to be indicative that
something's gone wrong somewhere.
As a result, I don't know where the Portlet changes should go - I can
understand that it would be good to get them in 1.3, but my feeling
remains that at this stage of a release, they shouldn't be added.
/Gwyn
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> I think the issue is how much extra time is needed to wait until the
> merged result can be proven in the wild to be stable enough.
> It may not affect only those who write portlets, but also those who
> don't.
>
> Frankly, I seldom see such significant new features being introduced
> in a beta stage.
It's been in there for a while though, and the impact on the Wicket
core project should be nill. The only thing that we have to take into
account with the Wicket core project is that we shouldn't break Ate's
rules, but I think that could only happen when we would introduce new
functionality or do big internal refactoring.
Eelco
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo>.
Matej Knopp-2 wrote:
>
> I think it would be shame not to have portlet support in trunk if we
> can (and if it won't cause too many issues).
>
I think the issue is how much extra time is needed to wait until the
merged result can be proven in the wild to be stable enough.
It may not affect only those who write portlets, but also those who
don't.
Frankly, I seldom see such significant new features being introduced
in a beta stage.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--jira--Resolved%3A-%28WICKET-647%29-New-Wicket-Portlet-support-tf4467600.html#a12749145
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
I think it would be shame not to have portlet support in trunk if we
can (and if it won't cause too many issues).
-Matej
On 9/17/07, Thijs <cr...@mytweakers.net> wrote:
> Although I have no binding say in this I really would like this to go
> into 1.3 asap. I'm trying to convince college's to use wicket based
> portlets over JSF for our new portal based website. And having this in a
> 'final' release would really help me a lot.
>
> +1 for commit in trunk (non-binding)
>
> Thijs
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > So what is the verdict? Should we move portlet support back into
> > trunk? Or is this something that should be done after 1.3 final has
> > been released?
> >
> > Based on the number of bugs still open, I'm reluctant to add another
> > feature into core that may introduce bugs. But I don't want the
> > portlet support to stay out of trunk for too long, otherwise it will
> > be quite some effort *again* to upgrade the branch...
> >
> > So what shall we do?
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 9/17/07, Ate Douma (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
> >>
> >> Ate Douma resolved WICKET-647.
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Resolution: Fixed
> >>
> >> With now the last subtask WICKET-658 resolved, I think the overall task of providing initial portlet support for Wicket is complete and usable enough for integrating in the Wicket trunk.
> >>
> >>
> >>> New Wicket Portlet support
> >>> --------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Key: WICKET-647
> >>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647
> >>> Project: Wicket
> >>> Issue Type: New Feature
> >>> Components: wicket-portlet
> >>> Affects Versions: 1.3.0-beta2, 1.3.0-beta3
> >>> Environment: Jetspeed-2.1.2, Tomcat 5.5, Servlet API 2.4, JDK 1.4 & Java 5
> >>> Reporter: Ate Douma
> >>> Assignee: Ate Douma
> >>>
> >>> I'm providing a new solution for Wicket Portlet support, see also my initial proposal on the wicket-dev list: http://www.nabble.com/A-new-proposal-for-Wicket-Portlet-support-tf3836652.html
> >>> As this solution will require a few (but not very much) changes to Wicket core, I'll create a separate branch first to let everyone involved review and test it out.
> >>> I'll also create separate sub tasks in JIRA to record the changes required and the new features provided so each can be reviewed individually and we can have step-by-step discussions how to proceed in bringing this solution into the main trunk.
> >>> Note: as current Wicket development is getting close to the 1.3.0 release, I don't expect all of this to be merged into the trunk until after the 1.3.0 release.
> >>> But some of my proposed changes really are very light and non-intrusive, so I can imagine (and hope) those can be integrated in the trunk even before the 1.3.0 release.
> >>> That definitely would make it easier for me to provide portlet support to my own development team using the wicket core trunk and only a few additional patches.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> >> -
> >> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-647) New Wicket Portlet support
Posted by Thijs <cr...@mytweakers.net>.
Although I have no binding say in this I really would like this to go
into 1.3 asap. I'm trying to convince college's to use wicket based
portlets over JSF for our new portal based website. And having this in a
'final' release would really help me a lot.
+1 for commit in trunk (non-binding)
Thijs
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Congratulations!
>
> So what is the verdict? Should we move portlet support back into
> trunk? Or is this something that should be done after 1.3 final has
> been released?
>
> Based on the number of bugs still open, I'm reluctant to add another
> feature into core that may introduce bugs. But I don't want the
> portlet support to stay out of trunk for too long, otherwise it will
> be quite some effort *again* to upgrade the branch...
>
> So what shall we do?
>
> Martijn
>
> On 9/17/07, Ate Douma (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
>>
>> Ate Douma resolved WICKET-647.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Resolution: Fixed
>>
>> With now the last subtask WICKET-658 resolved, I think the overall task of providing initial portlet support for Wicket is complete and usable enough for integrating in the Wicket trunk.
>>
>>
>>> New Wicket Portlet support
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: WICKET-647
>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-647
>>> Project: Wicket
>>> Issue Type: New Feature
>>> Components: wicket-portlet
>>> Affects Versions: 1.3.0-beta2, 1.3.0-beta3
>>> Environment: Jetspeed-2.1.2, Tomcat 5.5, Servlet API 2.4, JDK 1.4 & Java 5
>>> Reporter: Ate Douma
>>> Assignee: Ate Douma
>>>
>>> I'm providing a new solution for Wicket Portlet support, see also my initial proposal on the wicket-dev list: http://www.nabble.com/A-new-proposal-for-Wicket-Portlet-support-tf3836652.html
>>> As this solution will require a few (but not very much) changes to Wicket core, I'll create a separate branch first to let everyone involved review and test it out.
>>> I'll also create separate sub tasks in JIRA to record the changes required and the new features provided so each can be reviewed individually and we can have step-by-step discussions how to proceed in bringing this solution into the main trunk.
>>> Note: as current Wicket development is getting close to the 1.3.0 release, I don't expect all of this to be merged into the trunk until after the 1.3.0 release.
>>> But some of my proposed changes really are very light and non-intrusive, so I can imagine (and hope) those can be integrated in the trunk even before the 1.3.0 release.
>>> That definitely would make it easier for me to provide portlet support to my own development team using the wicket core trunk and only a few additional patches.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>> -
>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>