2 Replies Latest reply on Apr 6, 2004 1:09 PM by joe hobson

    Is the plan to move to portlets?

    Joel Shellman Newbie

      I understand there is the beginning of work on implementing the portlet spec (or at least talking about it). Once portlet support is added, is the plan to move all the modules/blocks to portlets?

      I understand there has been discussion about priorities, but I need to understand the vision and direction of Nukes. If it is to be a JSR 168 container with everything supported that way (and if necessary, some controlled extensions if necessary as specs are sometimes not sufficient), or is the JSR 168 support seen as just an add on and not core?

      I'm asking because if it aligns with my goals, I'm interested in helping.

      In other words... If I helped with portlet spec impl, and I helped with refactoring modules to portlets, would that be welcome and desired help or considered a nuisance?

        • 1. Re: Is the plan to move to portlets?
          Viet Master

          Our portlet implementation will be the core of Nukes. Your help is considered as welcome.

          However we need to extend the portlet interfaces when it makes sense to provide more to the modules. For instance I like the getParameterAsXXX in the current Page object, so I want something like :

          public interface NukesActionRequest extends ActionRequest {
          // Add here what is missing
          }

          etc...

          • 2. Re: Is the plan to move to portlets?
            joe hobson Newbie

            I just wanted to voice my support of the JSR 168 portlet spec being implimented in Nukes. I really like Nukes- the developers, the code, the philosophy et al. At the same time I'm looking at building a portlet so that it doesn't matter which portal my clients want to use- uPortal, Sakai, Oracle, etc. So if Nukes impliments the portlet spec in the next year or so I'll be quite happy to keep on developing here.

            thanks for your work... .joe