Comments on: JSR 286 is not Irrelevant

By: Fernando Ribeiro

Fernando Ribeiro — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:33:07 +0000

Agreed.

By: Andy Pemberton

Andy Pemberton — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:39:28 +0000

Good points, yet again. =) I’d actually say the Web 2.0 point supports the argument that portal can sometimes be an afterthought, as these technology stacks were developed outside the portal and then brought into the portal after the fact.

Regardless, I actually do think the portlet specs have their place; I’d like to see the portlet specs treated as an official and important part of the JavaEE specification, as opposed to ‘an afterthought’. I think this would do a lot for participation and maturity of the specs.

-Andy

By: Fernando Ribeiro

Fernando Ribeiro — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:39:46 +0000

The link between SOA and Web 2.0, and portals is that they are all aggregation technologies. The low use of Java in Web 2.0 applications seems off-topic to me.

I have revised the “Absolutely not” argument, let me know what you think about it.

By: Andy Pemberton

Andy Pemberton — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:21:43 +0000

You do have a couple of good points here, especially re: the portlet spec extending the servlet spec.

I’m not all against the portlet specs; I just think that Eric’s point that the cons of the framework outweigh the pros is very valid.

I don’t have too much time to respond here, but a few quick thoughts:

1) Not sure how SOA and Web 2.0 have “all to do with portals”. The stats would show that most applications built out with what are being called Web 2.0 technologies are typically not even built on Java – with PHP being the most predominant language. Again, I’d argue that portal is an after thought when it comes to both the SOA and Web 2.0 movements.

2) “Absolutely not.” – not sure that this is a worthwhile argument. Truthfully, I don’t feel that the portlet specs are as much irrelevant as they are too specific in application and over-applied to business problems.

Anyway; enjoyed your write-up.

-Andy