Portlets and J2EE?

[Craig Walls <wa...@michaels.com>]

All,

Nobody has given me an accurate answer to this questions yet, so I'm
hoping that someone on this e-mail list can help. It's really more of a
philosophical question than a technical question, but I need to know so
that I accurately portray JSR-168 when I present it.

Is JSR-168 considered (or will it be considered) part of the J2EE family
of specifications or is it more of a peripheral specification? On the
one hand, it is based loosely on servlets and doesn't make much sense
outside of a J2EE environment. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it
directly fits into the J2EE space.

I'm sure that this question will muster up some debate and controversy,
so I apologize in advance. But I need to know so that I don't
misrepresent JSR-168.

Thanks,
Craig

Re: Portlets and J2EE?

[Stefan Hepper <st...@hursley.ibm.com>]

Hi Craig,
yes, the goal is to integrate the Portlets into J2EE someday. However, 
to achieve this the Portal Spec needs to be compliant with the current 
J2EE version, which is 1.4 (the Portlet Spec currently requires 1.3) and 
need some kind of portlet invoker mechanism. We'll work in follow-on 
Portlet Spec JSRs towards this goal of getting into J2EE.

Stefan

Craig Walls wrote:

> All,
> 
> Nobody has given me an accurate answer to this questions yet, so I'm
> hoping that someone on this e-mail list can help. It's really more of a
> philosophical question than a technical question, but I need to know so
> that I accurately portray JSR-168 when I present it.
> 
> Is JSR-168 considered (or will it be considered) part of the J2EE family
> of specifications or is it more of a peripheral specification? On the
> one hand, it is based loosely on servlets and doesn't make much sense
> outside of a J2EE environment. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it
> directly fits into the J2EE space.
> 
> I'm sure that this question will muster up some debate and controversy,
> so I apologize in advance. But I need to know so that I don't
> misrepresent JSR-168.
> 
> Thanks,
> Craig
> 
> 
>