-
1. Re: PageContainer in 2.2 source tree but not found in 2.2.1-
ezraepstein Jul 17, 2006 4:09 PM (in response to ezraepstein)Well, the obvious turned out to be right: the CVS pull didn't bring down the 2.2 branch... Via FishEye I found the code I wanted to see...
-
2. Re: PageContainer in 2.2 source tree but not found in 2.2.1-
julien1 Jul 19, 2006 9:57 AM (in response to ezraepstein)Any interesting stuff you want to do with PageContainer and such ?
-
3. Re: PageContainer in 2.2 source tree but not found in 2.2.1-
ezraepstein Jul 19, 2006 12:23 PM (in response to ezraepstein)Yes, we're writing out own management portlet to have a different l&f and to support finer-grained access control. Creating new pages is supported (or will be) and hence the question about PageContainer.
On the subject of source, I re-pulled the jboss-portal-2.2 branch and I wonder whether it was correctly tagged in CVS: what I see is the code that was merged into the 2.4 mainline branch. I.e., the re-pulled 2.2 code shows PageContainer and many other classes that don't exist in the 2.2 libraries. I pulled from Eclipse's built-in "New > Project... > CVS > Checkout Projects from CVS" feature. -
4. Re: PageContainer in 2.2 source tree but not found in 2.2.1-
roy.russo Jul 19, 2006 1:18 PM (in response to ezraepstein)Why are you rewriting the management portlet? Why not add to the current one and contribute it back for the community to benefit?
-
5. Re: PageContainer in 2.2 source tree but not found in 2.2.1-
ezraepstein Jul 19, 2006 1:20 PM (in response to ezraepstein)We may well do that. We're currently writing it with Tapestry, however. We find JSF problematic on many levels (I could go into details, but would rather do that offline). Will JBoss community accept Tapestry-dependent portlets?
-
6. Re: PageContainer in 2.2 source tree but not found in 2.2.1-
julien1 Jul 20, 2006 12:07 PM (in response to ezraepstein)The thing is that we are going to rewrite the management portlets for the 2.6 release in order to have them more powerful and simple.
We will probably continue to use JSF. What did you find wrong with JSF ?