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 2007/03/18 00:33:18 UTC
[poll] Future of portlets
The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very well,
at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that do know
something about portlets are too busy with other things.
I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples but
that didn't work. I know there are several people using the portlet
integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions about
it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option. And it
would cost us a feature checkmark.
I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support out of
core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, the
better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain it, we
could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
What do you think?
Martijn
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [poll] Future of portlets
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
OK,
I've extracted a new wicket-portlets project and it is available here:
* http://wicket-stuff.svn.sf.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/branches/wicket-1.3/wicket-portlets
* http://wicket-stuff.svn.sf.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/branches/wicket-1.3/wicket-portlet-examples/
I also updated our migration guide and send an adoption letter to the
user list for our 'orphaned' porlet support.
Martijn
On 3/18/07, Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yep, that should be all.
>
> Janne
>
>
> On 18.3.2007, at 15.08, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> > I've moved the wicket-portlet-examples from Apache to wicket-stuff
> > svn.
> >
> > Is the portlet support only contained in the following packages?
> >
> > wicket.protocol.http.portlet
> > wicket.protocol.http.portlet.pages
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 3/18/07, Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Yeah, let's move the portlet support to the wicket-stuff or some
> >> subproject in apache. I could finally fix the two known bugs, but
> >> since I'm not really using portlet stuff in any real-world
> >> application, the portlet support would still be highly experimental/
> >> incomplete.
> >>
> >> Janne
> >>
> >>
> >> On 18.3.2007, at 2.07, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > Eelco
> >> >
> >> > On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff
> >> >> for real
> >> >> projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and
> >> >> breaks. i dont
> >> >> think we should have something that is potentially broken/
> >> >> incomplete in our
> >> >> releases
> >> >>
> >> >> -igor
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very
> >> >> well,
> >> >> > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that
> >> do know
> >> >> > something about portlets are too busy with other things.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples
> >> >> but
> >> >> > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the
> >> portlet
> >> >> > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions
> >> >> about
> >> >> > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option.
> >> >> And it
> >> >> > would cost us a feature checkmark.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support
> >> out of
> >> >> > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
> >> >> > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work,
> >> the
> >> >> > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain
> >> >> it, we
> >> >> > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you think?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Martijn
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> >> >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> >> >> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> >> >> > http://wicketframework.org
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
>
>
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [poll] Future of portlets
Posted by Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org>.
Yep, that should be all.
Janne
On 18.3.2007, at 15.08, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I've moved the wicket-portlet-examples from Apache to wicket-stuff
> svn.
>
> Is the portlet support only contained in the following packages?
>
> wicket.protocol.http.portlet
> wicket.protocol.http.portlet.pages
>
> ?
>
> Martijn
>
> On 3/18/07, Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Yeah, let's move the portlet support to the wicket-stuff or some
>> subproject in apache. I could finally fix the two known bugs, but
>> since I'm not really using portlet stuff in any real-world
>> application, the portlet support would still be highly experimental/
>> incomplete.
>>
>> Janne
>>
>>
>> On 18.3.2007, at 2.07, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Eelco
>> >
>> > On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff
>> >> for real
>> >> projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and
>> >> breaks. i dont
>> >> think we should have something that is potentially broken/
>> >> incomplete in our
>> >> releases
>> >>
>> >> -igor
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very
>> >> well,
>> >> > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that
>> do know
>> >> > something about portlets are too busy with other things.
>> >> >
>> >> > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples
>> >> but
>> >> > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the
>> portlet
>> >> > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions
>> >> about
>> >> > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option.
>> >> And it
>> >> > would cost us a feature checkmark.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support
>> out of
>> >> > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
>> >> > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work,
>> the
>> >> > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain
>> >> it, we
>> >> > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> > Martijn
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
>> >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
>> >> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
>> >> > http://wicketframework.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
Re: [poll] Future of portlets
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
I've moved the wicket-portlet-examples from Apache to wicket-stuff svn.
Is the portlet support only contained in the following packages?
wicket.protocol.http.portlet
wicket.protocol.http.portlet.pages
?
Martijn
On 3/18/07, Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> Yeah, let's move the portlet support to the wicket-stuff or some
> subproject in apache. I could finally fix the two known bugs, but
> since I'm not really using portlet stuff in any real-world
> application, the portlet support would still be highly experimental/
> incomplete.
>
> Janne
>
>
> On 18.3.2007, at 2.07, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> > On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff
> >> for real
> >> projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and
> >> breaks. i dont
> >> think we should have something that is potentially broken/
> >> incomplete in our
> >> releases
> >>
> >> -igor
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very
> >> well,
> >> > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that do know
> >> > something about portlets are too busy with other things.
> >> >
> >> > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples
> >> but
> >> > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the portlet
> >> > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions
> >> about
> >> > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option.
> >> And it
> >> > would cost us a feature checkmark.
> >> >
> >> > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support out of
> >> > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
> >> > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, the
> >> > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain
> >> it, we
> >> > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > Martijn
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> >> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> >> > http://wicketframework.org
> >> >
> >>
>
>
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [poll] Future of portlets
Posted by Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org>.
+1
Yeah, let's move the portlet support to the wicket-stuff or some
subproject in apache. I could finally fix the two known bugs, but
since I'm not really using portlet stuff in any real-world
application, the portlet support would still be highly experimental/
incomplete.
Janne
On 18.3.2007, at 2.07, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> +1
>
> Eelco
>
> On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff
>> for real
>> projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and
>> breaks. i dont
>> think we should have something that is potentially broken/
>> incomplete in our
>> releases
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very
>> well,
>> > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that do know
>> > something about portlets are too busy with other things.
>> >
>> > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples
>> but
>> > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the portlet
>> > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions
>> about
>> > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option.
>> And it
>> > would cost us a feature checkmark.
>> >
>> > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support out of
>> > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
>> > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, the
>> > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain
>> it, we
>> > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > Martijn
>> >
>> > --
>> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
>> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
>> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
>> > http://wicketframework.org
>> >
>>
Re: [poll] Future of portlets
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
+1
Eelco
On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff for real
> projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and breaks. i dont
> think we should have something that is potentially broken/incomplete in our
> releases
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very well,
> > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that do know
> > something about portlets are too busy with other things.
> >
> > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples but
> > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the portlet
> > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions about
> > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option. And it
> > would cost us a feature checkmark.
> >
> > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support out of
> > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
> > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, the
> > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain it, we
> > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
> >
>
Re: [poll] Future of portlets
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
+1
until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff for real
projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and breaks. i dont
think we should have something that is potentially broken/incomplete in our
releases
-igor
On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very well,
> at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that do know
> something about portlets are too busy with other things.
>
> I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples but
> that didn't work. I know there are several people using the portlet
> integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions about
> it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option. And it
> would cost us a feature checkmark.
>
> I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support out of
> core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to
> maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, the
> better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain it, we
> could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>