portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Sean Taylor" <da...@bluesunrise.com>
Subject RE: Jetspeed Proposal: iframe portlet control
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:54:53 GMT
Good proposal.

I think that this overall feature should be supported throughout the
project, and not only with iframes, and with different media types.

I like the idea of randomly accessing content, whether it's a portlet, a
portlet with its control, or a collection of portlets. In order for this
to work, we need to have unique ids support. Paul and I have been
discussing this for a while now, and he just committed the start of the
portlet id implementation. Its not complete. We still need to work out:

- a conversion utility to take existing psml files and ensure that a
unique id is added to each and every 'entry' and 'portlets' element.
- modify psml.xsd to mandate an id entry for 'portlets' and 'entry'
	change:
        <attribute name="id" type="string" minOccurs="1"/>
	to:
        <attribute name="id" type="string" use="required"/>
- a unique value generator (Turbine's has been deprecated)
- deprecate all pane and portlet references, and replace them with a new
portlet/portletset reference mechanism, integrating with tools (jlink)

Think about making the portlet id required. It means that old psml files
will be incompatible until converted.

I agree with Santiago, that we should all agree on a common naming
convention. I like 'Content' better than 'Clear'...what about
'PortletElement'?

The default content, an entire portal page is addressed by
/jetspeed/portal. 
It gets the default layout/template. 

What about "/template/PortalElement/peid/42" where 
	peid - represents portal element id (see above)
PEID can represent either a portlet entry or portlet set.

Then JetspeedTool would have a 'getPortalElement' method etc.
Anyway, that's my vote on the naming.

My vote is +1 on this, as long as we make sure it supports other media
types and constructs as well as IFrames.

Im now going to look into continuing what Paul started on using unique
ids across the system.


> 4.1  Decisions
>  
> Do we want this in Jetspeed?

+1

>  
> Are there improvements to these details that better fit the 
> jetspeed code and intentions?

See above.

>  
> Do we want a single portlet control, or updates to them all?

I like the optional "iframe" attribute on all controls.
This gives the most flexibility.

>  
> How are we going to identify a portlet within a portal page?  

See above.

> What code will support forming this id and finding?

We're still working that out.

>  
> How to change the customizers to support portlet control choice?

Do you mean the 'Iframe' option? Not sure if I understand this question.

>  
> Should we surface more iframe control to the user, such as height?

Yes. Perhaps a more detailed design of Iframe customization would help.

>  
> Should we make the iframe parameters different (bigger 
> height) when the portlet is maximized?

Perhaps a more detailed design of Iframe customization would help.

David



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message