You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to pluto-dev@portals.apache.org by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org> on 2006/12/04 14:06:06 UTC
Re: Admin Portlet
Hi Torsten
Sounds good, you're right, there's not reason to duplicate efforts.
So far, what I have implemented is:
- auto-publishing of portlet applications when they are deployed by the
app server.
- portlet to add portlet to a page.
In addition, craig has flushed out a portlet which allows users to
rebundle (with the appropriate web.xml) and deploy the portlet app. I
envision these portlets remaining seperate since one the deployer will
be app server specific and the page admin will not.
Oliver please let the list know what you are working on and we can flush
out the details over there.
I'm copying the pluto dev list on this email. All of this communication
should be on the dev list and we should try to refrain from one-off emails.
Thanks,
David
Dettborn wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> we are working on a new Admin-Porlet and I hope we finish it in one or
> two weeks, so we can send a patch for the admin-Portlet, but i think it
> will be better when you contact Oliver, who write the portlet manager up
> to now. You can ask him for the sources for what he have done, so the
> work don't make twice. I hope this is in your mind.
>
> Best regards
>
> Torsten
>
Re: Admin Portlet
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
Charles Severance wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:43 AM, David H. DeWolf wrote:
>
>> CDoremus@hannaford.com wrote:
>>> Since David has simplified the registration of portlets, that means
>>> that some of my admin interface implementation is redundant or
>>> deprecated. Oliver should also check his implementation against
>>> David's recent commits. Please have him share with us what he has
>>> done so far.
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>>> We also need to try to reuse code between the three ways to deploy
>>> portlets -- maven, ant and the admin interface -- whenever possible.
>
> I am only partially following this - but does "admin interface" mean "
> upload and run-time register a war?
No, it only means "upload".
The register is done by the container now (auto-publish/auto-register).
It happens for ALL portlet apps by default.
>
> As totally cool auto-registration is - lots of folks have gotten to the
> point where war upload is *the* way to get portlets in. It allows
> hacking of wars and lots of fun stuff. It would seem useful to collect
> best practice for "registering wars" at runtime.
That's what the auto-publish stuff is. Through these means, you can
"upload" a webapp with the standard tomcat manager (or any other app
server for that matter) and it will be deployed by the app server and
AUTOMATICALLY registered with the container.
The piece missing here is that the web.xml will need to reference the
PortletServlet. . .this is the added value of what Craig's working on.
His admin portlets upload the war AND repackage them to include the
PortletServlet used for dispatching.
>
> I *do* think that auto-registration is the sweet spot in the use case -
> it allows folks to grab Tomcat, grab the portal war file that suits your
> fancy, grab a bunch of portlet wars - knit it together and start tomcat
> and voila it all comes up without a lot of run-time hacking.
No knitting is required anymore. There are no configurations that are
needed in the portal . . .now the portlet apps are auto-discovered.
>
> But knowing how much folks have worked around previous weaknesses in
> things by the "upload approach" - it seems like it is a good idea not to
> lose it.
>
> If this is a dumb question - feel free to say so directly - I won't be
> offended.
>
Not at all, I feel like I'm not explaining well . . .do you understand
now? Does that help?
> /Chuck
>
Re: Admin Portlet
Posted by CD...@hannaford.com.
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for chiming in. See below.
Charles Severance <cs...@umich.edu> wrote on 12/04/2006 11:59:08 AM:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:43 AM, David H. DeWolf wrote:
>
> > CDoremus@hannaford.com wrote:
> >> Since David has simplified the registration of portlets, that
> >> means that some of my admin interface implementation is redundant
> >> or deprecated. Oliver should also check his implementation against
> >> David's recent commits. Please have him share with us what he has
> >> done so far.
> >
> > Yes!
> >
> >> We also need to try to reuse code between the three ways to deploy
> >> portlets -- maven, ant and the admin interface -- whenever possible.
>
> I am only partially following this - but does "admin interface" mean
> " upload and run-time register a war?
I'm talking about a console for administering portlets and pages
(add/remove etc.) not a Java interface. Sorry if that confused you.
>
> As totally cool auto-registration is - lots of folks have gotten to
> the point where war upload is *the* way to get portlets in. It
> allows hacking of wars and lots of fun stuff. It would seem useful
> to collect best practice for "registering wars" at runtime.
>
> I *do* think that auto-registration is the sweet spot in the use case
> - it allows folks to grab Tomcat, grab the portal war file that suits
> your fancy, grab a bunch of portlet wars - knit it together and start
> tomcat and voila it all comes up without a lot of run-time hacking.
>
> But knowing how much folks have worked around previous weaknesses in
> things by the "upload approach" - it seems like it is a good idea not
> to lose it.
>
It would be great to have a universal Java spi for portlet administration,
but that might not be possible given the diversity of portals that are out
there. There should be a JSR-286 proposal to make this easier. Maybe this
is something to push in the Expert Group.
> If this is a dumb question - feel free to say so directly - I won't
> be offended.
>
No questions are ever dumb! My answers may sound stupid, but they really
are just simple minded ;)
Re: Admin Portlet
Posted by Charles Severance <cs...@umich.edu>.
On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:43 AM, David H. DeWolf wrote:
> CDoremus@hannaford.com wrote:
>> Since David has simplified the registration of portlets, that
>> means that some of my admin interface implementation is redundant
>> or deprecated. Oliver should also check his implementation against
>> David's recent commits. Please have him share with us what he has
>> done so far.
>
> Yes!
>
>> We also need to try to reuse code between the three ways to deploy
>> portlets -- maven, ant and the admin interface -- whenever possible.
I am only partially following this - but does "admin interface" mean
" upload and run-time register a war?
As totally cool auto-registration is - lots of folks have gotten to
the point where war upload is *the* way to get portlets in. It
allows hacking of wars and lots of fun stuff. It would seem useful
to collect best practice for "registering wars" at runtime.
I *do* think that auto-registration is the sweet spot in the use case
- it allows folks to grab Tomcat, grab the portal war file that suits
your fancy, grab a bunch of portlet wars - knit it together and start
tomcat and voila it all comes up without a lot of run-time hacking.
But knowing how much folks have worked around previous weaknesses in
things by the "upload approach" - it seems like it is a good idea not
to lose it.
If this is a dumb question - feel free to say so directly - I won't
be offended.
/Chuck
Re: Admin Portlet
Posted by CD...@hannaford.com.
See below:
"David H. DeWolf" <dd...@gmail.com> wrote on 12/04/2006 11:43:00 AM:
>
>
> CDoremus@hannaford.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Yes, both David and I are working on this too. Great minds think
alike ;).
> >
> > Anyway, I think Jira is the best way of discussing development issues
> > like this as we have been doing with the JSR-286 stuff. Can we
continue
> > this discussion under PLUTO-215 or create another issue that focuses
> > this discussion?
>
> I disagree, we need to flush things out through email and then document
> progress/bugs in jira.
>
> Discussions shouldn't happen in jira -- mailing lists are the official
> means of communication at Apache.
>
That's fine with me -- discuss this on the mailing list.
I just think we need a way to indicate who is working on what and Jira
issues have a mechanism for doing that (the assigned field). I'd rather
not get to a point again where multiple people are working on the same
thing. There's enough work to be done for everyone to get a chance to
contribute.
Re: Admin Portlet
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
CDoremus@hannaford.com wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Yes, both David and I are working on this too. Great minds think alike ;).
>
> Anyway, I think Jira is the best way of discussing development issues
> like this as we have been doing with the JSR-286 stuff. Can we continue
> this discussion under PLUTO-215 or create another issue that focuses
> this discussion?
I disagree, we need to flush things out through email and then document
progress/bugs in jira.
Discussions shouldn't happen in jira -- mailing lists are the official
means of communication at Apache.
>
> Yes, we should put any Tomcat-specific code into
> pluto-portal-driver-impl, but have interfaces that could be implement
> for other servers, and Spring to specify the implementation. That was
> what I am trying to do with my admin deploy portlet code which has been
> put in the
> <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/portals/pluto/branches/1.1.0-ADMIN-PORTLET-CRAIG/>1.1.0-ADMIN-PORTLET-CRAIG
> branch for now.
>
> Since David has simplified the registration of portlets, that means that
> some of my admin interface implementation is redundant or deprecated.
> Oliver should also check his implementation against David's recent
> commits. Please have him share with us what he has done so far.
Yes!
>
> We also need to try to reuse code between the three ways to deploy
> portlets -- maven, ant and the admin interface -- whenever possible.
Agreed. Great point.
>
> /Craig
>
>
> "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@gmail.com> wrote on 12/04/2006 08:06:06 AM:
>
> > Hi Torsten
> >
> > Sounds good, you're right, there's not reason to duplicate efforts.
> >
> > So far, what I have implemented is:
> >
> > - auto-publishing of portlet applications when they are deployed by the
> > app server.
> >
> > - portlet to add portlet to a page.
> >
> > In addition, craig has flushed out a portlet which allows users to
> > rebundle (with the appropriate web.xml) and deploy the portlet app. I
> > envision these portlets remaining seperate since one the deployer will
> > be app server specific and the page admin will not.
> >
> > Oliver please let the list know what you are working on and we can flush
> > out the details over there.
> >
> > I'm copying the pluto dev list on this email. All of this communication
> > should be on the dev list and we should try to refrain from one-off
> emails.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> > Dettborn wrote:
> > > Hello David,
> > >
> > > we are working on a new Admin-Porlet and I hope we finish it in one or
> > > two weeks, so we can send a patch for the admin-Portlet, but i
> think it
> > > will be better when you contact Oliver, who write the portlet
> manager up
> > > to now. You can ask him for the sources for what he have done, so the
> > > work don't make twice. I hope this is in your mind.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Torsten
> > >
Re: Admin Portlet
Posted by CD...@hannaford.com.
Hi all,
Yes, both David and I are working on this too. Great minds think alike
;).
Anyway, I think Jira is the best way of discussing development issues like
this as we have been doing with the JSR-286 stuff. Can we continue this
discussion under PLUTO-215 or create another issue that focuses this
discussion?
Yes, we should put any Tomcat-specific code into pluto-portal-driver-impl,
but have interfaces that could be implement for other servers, and Spring
to specify the implementation. That was what I am trying to do with my
admin deploy portlet code which has been put in the
1.1.0-ADMIN-PORTLET-CRAIG branch for now.
Since David has simplified the registration of portlets, that means that
some of my admin interface implementation is redundant or deprecated.
Oliver should also check his implementation against David's recent
commits. Please have him share with us what he has done so far.
We also need to try to reuse code between the three ways to deploy
portlets -- maven, ant and the admin interface -- whenever possible.
/Craig
"David H. DeWolf" <dd...@gmail.com> wrote on 12/04/2006 08:06:06 AM:
> Hi Torsten
>
> Sounds good, you're right, there's not reason to duplicate efforts.
>
> So far, what I have implemented is:
>
> - auto-publishing of portlet applications when they are deployed by the
> app server.
>
> - portlet to add portlet to a page.
>
> In addition, craig has flushed out a portlet which allows users to
> rebundle (with the appropriate web.xml) and deploy the portlet app. I
> envision these portlets remaining seperate since one the deployer will
> be app server specific and the page admin will not.
>
> Oliver please let the list know what you are working on and we can flush
> out the details over there.
>
> I'm copying the pluto dev list on this email. All of this communication
> should be on the dev list and we should try to refrain from one-off
emails.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> David
>
> Dettborn wrote:
> > Hello David,
> >
> > we are working on a new Admin-Porlet and I hope we finish it in one or
> > two weeks, so we can send a patch for the admin-Portlet, but i think
it
> > will be better when you contact Oliver, who write the portlet manager
up
> > to now. You can ask him for the sources for what he have done, so the
> > work don't make twice. I hope this is in your mind.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Torsten
> >