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 Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2003/11/10 17:37:21 UTC
Bugzilla is up
Thanks to the guys at Infrastructure, we have bugzilla running
for us!
I set up the Pluto Project there and added two components,
API and container. I'm open to any suggestions about which
components we really should enter there. I have enough
karma to change this at any time :)
So, what do you think we need?
(I can fix this on wednesday as I'm tomorrow out of office)
Carsten
RE: Bugzilla is up
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Agreed, I just deleted the component for the api from bugzilla.
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Hepper [mailto:sthepper@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:47 PM
> To: pluto-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bugzilla is up
>
>
> I don't think that this is a good idea. I doubt that you can change
> javax APIs outside the JCP process. This would only create confusion. We
> just put the javax APIs in the CVS for convenience. The official way
> would have been to point to the Sun web-site to download the javax API.
>
> Any bugs or typos in the javax API should be sent as comment to the
> jsr-168-comments@jcp.org alias to get these fixed via the JCP process.
>
> Stefan
>
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> >
> > |
> > |
> > | > -----Original Message-----
> > | > From: Stefan Hepper [mailto:sthepper@hursley.ibm.com]
> > | > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:43 PM
> > | > To: pluto-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > | > Subject: Re: Bugzilla is up
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > Cool, thanks Carsten!
> > | >
> > | > I would prefer the two components:
> > | > - portalImpl (or portal driver)
> > | > - portlet container
> > | >
> > | Sounds good to me, a will add a "general" section for things like
> > | docs patches, build system etc.
> > | What about the portlet API, we have this in our cvs as source
> > | as well, and it might be that there is an error as well, so
> > | perhaps having "portlet api" might make sense, although this
> > | might be very very theoretical.
> > |
> > | WDYT?
> >
> > Cool to have it there as a "dumping ground" for ideas to what the next
> > revision of the Portlet API should include .. A good place to start for
> > the Expert Group making that revision.
> >
>
Re: Bugzilla is up
Posted by Stefan Hepper <st...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I don't think that this is a good idea. I doubt that you can change
javax APIs outside the JCP process. This would only create confusion. We
just put the javax APIs in the CVS for convenience. The official way
would have been to point to the Sun web-site to download the javax API.
Any bugs or typos in the javax API should be sent as comment to the
jsr-168-comments@jcp.org alias to get these fixed via the JCP process.
Stefan
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> |
> |
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: Stefan Hepper [mailto:sthepper@hursley.ibm.com]
> | > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:43 PM
> | > To: pluto-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> | > Subject: Re: Bugzilla is up
> | >
> | >
> | > Cool, thanks Carsten!
> | >
> | > I would prefer the two components:
> | > - portalImpl (or portal driver)
> | > - portlet container
> | >
> | Sounds good to me, a will add a "general" section for things like
> | docs patches, build system etc.
> | What about the portlet API, we have this in our cvs as source
> | as well, and it might be that there is an error as well, so
> | perhaps having "portlet api" might make sense, although this
> | might be very very theoretical.
> |
> | WDYT?
>
> Cool to have it there as a "dumping ground" for ideas to what the next
> revision of the Portlet API should include .. A good place to start for
> the Expert Group making that revision.
>
Re: Bugzilla is up
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <En...@Stolsvik.com>.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
|
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Stefan Hepper [mailto:sthepper@hursley.ibm.com]
| > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:43 PM
| > To: pluto-dev@jakarta.apache.org
| > Subject: Re: Bugzilla is up
| >
| >
| > Cool, thanks Carsten!
| >
| > I would prefer the two components:
| > - portalImpl (or portal driver)
| > - portlet container
| >
| Sounds good to me, a will add a "general" section for things like
| docs patches, build system etc.
| What about the portlet API, we have this in our cvs as source
| as well, and it might be that there is an error as well, so
| perhaps having "portlet api" might make sense, although this
| might be very very theoretical.
|
| WDYT?
Cool to have it there as a "dumping ground" for ideas to what the next
revision of the Portlet API should include .. A good place to start for
the Expert Group making that revision.
--
Mvh,
Endre Stølsvik M[+47 93054050] F[+47 51625182]
Developer @ CoreTrek AS - http://www.coretrek.com/
CoreTrek corporate portal / EIP - http://www.corelets.com/
RE: Bugzilla is up
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Hepper [mailto:sthepper@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:43 PM
> To: pluto-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bugzilla is up
>
>
> Cool, thanks Carsten!
>
> I would prefer the two components:
> - portalImpl (or portal driver)
> - portlet container
>
Sounds good to me, a will add a "general" section for things like
docs patches, build system etc.
What about the portlet API, we have this in our cvs as source
as well, and it might be that there is an error as well, so
perhaps having "portlet api" might make sense, although this
might be very very theoretical.
WDYT?
Carsten
Re: Bugzilla is up
Posted by Stefan Hepper <st...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Cool, thanks Carsten!
I would prefer the two components:
- portalImpl (or portal driver)
- portlet container
Stefan
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Thanks to the guys at Infrastructure, we have bugzilla running
> for us!
> I set up the Pluto Project there and added two components,
> API and container. I'm open to any suggestions about which
> components we really should enter there. I have enough
> karma to change this at any time :)
>
> So, what do you think we need?
>
> (I can fix this on wednesday as I'm tomorrow out of office)
>
> Carsten
>
>
>