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 Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> on 2006/02/10 19:46:45 UTC
[PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Hi,
I think that may be good for pluto to have a standard container API before
we release
the 1.1.0-beta version.
We may better re-organize the container classes by putting all service
provider API
(all required / optional service interfaces) into an spi package, putting
pluto-specific
portlet api (InternalPortletRequest/InternalPortletResponse/wrapper classes)
into
the portlet package, and putting impls of the portlet API interfaces
(PortletRequestImpl,
PortletResponseImpl...) into the portlet.impl package, etc.
In this way, the developers who want to integrate pluto into their portal
solution
may have a clearer API.
What's your opinion?
Regards.
--
ZHENG Zhong
- http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
- http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com>.
Done.
I changed the name of PortletPreference to InternalPortletPreference.
IMHO, the original name is a little confusing with
javax.portlet.PortletPreferences.
I moved that interface into package org.apache.pluto.internal, since it is
an internal interface used by Pluto.
Regards.
On 2/24/06, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sounds good. My only request is that we find a different place for
> the PortletPreference interface. It seems to me that the root package
> should be reserved ONLY for the VERY basic interfaces and classes
> needed to integrate with the Container.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> David
>
>
--
ZHENG Zhong
- http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
- http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
Sounds good. My only request is that we find a different place for
the PortletPreference interface. It seems to me that the root package
should be reserved ONLY for the VERY basic interfaces and classes
needed to integrate with the Container.
Thoughts?
David
On 2/23/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plan of the next step:
>
> 1/
> move all portlet request/response wrapper classes from
> org.apache.pluto.portlet to org.apache.pluto.wrappers.
>
> 2/
> move all internal interfaces from org.apache.pluto.core
> to org.apache.pluto.internal
>
> 3/
> move all impl classes of both the portlet API and the internal
> API from org.apache.pluto.core.impl to org.apache.pluto.internal.impl
>
> 4/
> move org.apache.pluto.core.PortletPreference interface to
> org.apache.pluto. Thus the package org.apache.pluto.core
> will be reserved for those pluto core impl classes like
> PortletServlet and PortletContainerImpl.
>
> All these changes will affect the pluto API, so before doing this,
> i would like to make sure that will be OK for you. Since pluto has
> not released its 1.1.0 version, we still have time to change the API
> without making the pluto integrators crazy.
>
> If you have any opinions, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> On 2/23/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am planning to refactor the pluto-container's packages/classes step by
> step.
> > Hope that will be OK for all of you.
> >
> > I've done the first step:
> > renamed package org.apache.pluto.services to org.apache.pluto.spi
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/11/06, David H. DeWolf < ddewolf@apache.org> wrote:
> > > fine by me, though i think we can find a better name than the "portlet"
> package.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Zhong ZHENG < heavyzheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I think that may be good for pluto to have a standard container API
> before
> > > > we release
> > > > the 1.1.0-beta version.
> > > >
> > > > We may better re-organize the container classes by putting all service
> > > > provider API
> > > > (all required / optional service interfaces) into an spi package,
> putting
> > > > pluto-specific
> > > > portlet api
> > > >
> (InternalPortletRequest/InternalPortletResponse/wrapper
> > > > classes) into
> > > > the portlet package, and putting impls of the portlet API interfaces
> > > > (PortletRequestImpl,
> > > > PortletResponseImpl...) into the portlet.impl package, etc.
> > > >
> > > > In this way, the developers who want to integrate pluto into their
> portal
> > > > solution
> > > > may have a clearer API.
> > > >
> > > > What's your opinion?
> > > >
> > > > Regards.
> > > > --
> > > > ZHENG Zhong
> > > > - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> > > > - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ZHENG Zhong
> > - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> > - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ZHENG Zhong
> - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com>.
Plan of the next step:
1/
move all portlet request/response wrapper classes from
org.apache.pluto.portlet to org.apache.pluto.wrappers.
2/
move all internal interfaces from org.apache.pluto.core
to org.apache.pluto.internal
3/
move all impl classes of both the portlet API and the internal
API from org.apache.pluto.core.impl to org.apache.pluto.internal.impl
4/
move org.apache.pluto.core.PortletPreference interface to
org.apache.pluto. Thus the package org.apache.pluto.core
will be reserved for those pluto core impl classes like
PortletServlet and PortletContainerImpl.
All these changes will affect the pluto API, so before doing this,
i would like to make sure that will be OK for you. Since pluto has
not released its 1.1.0 version, we still have time to change the API
without making the pluto integrators crazy.
If you have any opinions, please let me know. Thanks.
Regards.
On 2/23/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am planning to refactor the pluto-container's packages/classes step by
> step.
> Hope that will be OK for all of you.
>
> I've done the first step:
> renamed package org.apache.pluto.services to org.apache.pluto.spi
>
> Regards.
>
> On 2/11/06, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > fine by me, though i think we can find a better name than the "portlet"
> > package.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think that may be good for pluto to have a standard container API
> > before
> > > we release
> > > the 1.1.0-beta version.
> > >
> > > We may better re-organize the container classes by putting all service
> >
> > > provider API
> > > (all required / optional service interfaces) into an spi package,
> > putting
> > > pluto-specific
> > > portlet api
> > > (InternalPortletRequest/InternalPortletResponse/wrapper
> > > classes) into
> > > the portlet package, and putting impls of the portlet API interfaces
> > > (PortletRequestImpl,
> > > PortletResponseImpl...) into the portlet.impl package, etc.
> > >
> > > In this way, the developers who want to integrate pluto into their
> > portal
> > > solution
> > > may have a clearer API.
> > >
> > > What's your opinion?
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > > --
> > > ZHENG Zhong
> > > - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> > > - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ezheng/>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ZHENG Zhong
> - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/ <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezheng/>
>
--
ZHENG Zhong
- http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
- http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com>.
I've finished the refactoring work.
Regards.
On 2/24/06, CDoremus@hannaford.com <CD...@hannaford.com> wrote:
>
>
> Zheng,
>
> Thank you for all your hard work! Please let us know when you have
> finished with the refactoring work that you are currently doing.
>
> TIA
> /Craig
>
>
--
ZHENG Zhong
- http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
- http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by CD...@hannaford.com.
Zheng,
Thank you for all your hard work! Please let us know when you have
finished with the refactoring work that you are currently doing.
TIA
/Craig
"Zhong ZHENG" <he...@gmail.com>
02/23/2006 01:01 PM
Please respond to
pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
To
pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Hi,
I am planning to refactor the pluto-container's packages/classes step by
step.
Hope that will be OK for all of you.
I've done the first step:
renamed package org.apache.pluto.services to org.apache.pluto.spi
Regards.
On 2/11/06, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
fine by me, though i think we can find a better name than the "portlet"
package.
David
On 2/10/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that may be good for pluto to have a standard container API
before
> we release
> the 1.1.0-beta version.
>
> We may better re-organize the container classes by putting all service
> provider API
> (all required / optional service interfaces) into an spi package,
putting
> pluto-specific
> portlet api
> (InternalPortletRequest/InternalPortletResponse/wrapper
> classes) into
> the portlet package, and putting impls of the portlet API interfaces
> (PortletRequestImpl,
> PortletResponseImpl...) into the portlet.impl package, etc.
>
> In this way, the developers who want to integrate pluto into their
portal
> solution
> may have a clearer API.
>
> What's your opinion?
>
> Regards.
> --
> ZHENG Zhong
> - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
>
--
ZHENG Zhong
- http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
- http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I am planning to refactor the pluto-container's packages/classes step by
step.
Hope that will be OK for all of you.
I've done the first step:
renamed package org.apache.pluto.services to org.apache.pluto.spi
Regards.
On 2/11/06, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> fine by me, though i think we can find a better name than the "portlet"
> package.
>
> David
>
> On 2/10/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think that may be good for pluto to have a standard container API
> before
> > we release
> > the 1.1.0-beta version.
> >
> > We may better re-organize the container classes by putting all service
> > provider API
> > (all required / optional service interfaces) into an spi package,
> putting
> > pluto-specific
> > portlet api
> > (InternalPortletRequest/InternalPortletResponse/wrapper
> > classes) into
> > the portlet package, and putting impls of the portlet API interfaces
> > (PortletRequestImpl,
> > PortletResponseImpl...) into the portlet.impl package, etc.
> >
> > In this way, the developers who want to integrate pluto into their
> portal
> > solution
> > may have a clearer API.
> >
> > What's your opinion?
> >
> > Regards.
> > --
> > ZHENG Zhong
> > - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> > - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
> >
>
--
ZHENG Zhong
- http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
- http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
Re: [PROPOSAL] repackage the container module
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
fine by me, though i think we can find a better name than the "portlet" package.
David
On 2/10/06, Zhong ZHENG <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that may be good for pluto to have a standard container API before
> we release
> the 1.1.0-beta version.
>
> We may better re-organize the container classes by putting all service
> provider API
> (all required / optional service interfaces) into an spi package, putting
> pluto-specific
> portlet api
> (InternalPortletRequest/InternalPortletResponse/wrapper
> classes) into
> the portlet package, and putting impls of the portlet API interfaces
> (PortletRequestImpl,
> PortletResponseImpl...) into the portlet.impl package, etc.
>
> In this way, the developers who want to integrate pluto into their portal
> solution
> may have a clearer API.
>
> What's your opinion?
>
> Regards.
> --
> ZHENG Zhong
> - http://heavyz.blogspot.com/
> - http://people.apache.org/~zheng/
>