You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2004/08/26 09:57:29 UTC
[VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
We have currently two portal blocks:
- the (old) portal-fw block: this is the first portal implementation that is
used here and there. The development of this block stopped a long time ago;
there were only a few bug fixes and nearly no commits in the last months.
- the (new) portal block: this is a new portal implementation (with JSR-168
support blabla) that is already used quiet a lot. It is stable from a user
point of view and it is improved continuously.
The portal-fw block is marked as stable while the portal block is marked as
unstable.
I think it's time to change the status of the blocks, so I propose to:
a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
b) mark portal as stable
Please cast your votes
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler
Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+1
>
> b) mark portal as stable
+1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
RE: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Giacomo Pati wrote:
> >
> > a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
>
> Hmm.. deprecated mean "Hey man, go change you portal as it
> will be removed in the future" is this you want to signal?
>
Yes :( The portal-fw is a nice portal framework, but the code
is very very ugly (I know it 'cause I wrote it). The new
portal block is (apart from tools) a 100% replacement which
is even faster and consumes less memory.
Deperecating does not mean removing and deprecating means that
it is still supported. So if any bugs occur, we will fix
them - but if you start a new project, you should use
the new portal block; that's why I think we should deprecate
the old one.
Carsten
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Giacomo Pati <gi...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> We have currently two portal blocks:
>
> - the (old) portal-fw block: this is the first portal implementation that is
> used here and there. The development of this block stopped a long time ago;
> there were only a few bug fixes and nearly no commits in the last months.
> - the (new) portal block: this is a new portal implementation (with JSR-168
> support blabla) that is already used quiet a lot. It is stable from a user
> point of view and it is improved continuously.
>
> The portal-fw block is marked as stable while the portal block is marked as
> unstable.
> I think it's time to change the status of the blocks, so I propose to:
>
> a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
Hmm.. deprecated mean "Hey man, go change you portal as it will be removed
in the future" is this you want to signal?
-0
> b) mark portal as stable
+1
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
At 8/26/2004 12:57 AM, you wrote:
>a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
>
>b) mark portal as stable
I am +1 to both of these - with a couple of caveats.
1. The old portal contains at least a minimal amount of portal
administration functionality. The new portal contains nothing.
2. The new portal documentation is poor. We are currently trying to figure
out how to heavily leverage it and there is no documentation on Aspects,
rendering, when and how the various stylesheets are invoked and how they
relate to the various portal.xml files. Currently, the only way to figure
it out is to modify the sample portal in a piecemeal fashion and see what
happens - and then look at the code to figure out why. This takes a LONG
time. In short, the portal documentation on the web site needs to be
improved to discuss some of the internals (especially since there are no
administration tools).
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>We have currently two portal blocks:
>
>- the (old) portal-fw block: this is the first portal implementation that is
>used here and there. The development of this block stopped a long time ago;
>there were only a few bug fixes and nearly no commits in the last months.
>- the (new) portal block: this is a new portal implementation (with JSR-168
>support blabla) that is already used quiet a lot. It is stable from a user
>point of view and it is improved continuously.
>
>The portal-fw block is marked as stable while the portal block is marked as
>unstable.
>I think it's time to change the status of the blocks, so I propose to:
>
>a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
>
>b) mark portal as stable
>
>
+1 for both.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
Hi,
On 26 Aug 2004, at 08:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+0 (I'm with Giacomo: until portal has all the facilities of portal-fw,
we shouldn't mark it deprecated: IIRC, deprecated meant 'likely to
disappear after two releases', which is clearly bad for users)
> b) mark portal as stable
+1
> Please cast your votes
Sorry I'm late ;-)
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory, Managing Director, Luminas Limited
Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
Web: http://www.luminas.co.uk/
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
>
>
+1
>b) mark portal as stable
>
>
+1
--
Reinhard
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
>> a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+1
>> b) mark portal as stable
+1
--
Torsten
Re: [VOTE] Status of Portal blocks
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 26.08.2004 09:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> a) mark portal-fw as deprecated
+1
> b) mark portal as stable
+1
Jörg