Talk:Portlet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree that portlets are only there for displaying relevant information. Portlets can be used as reusable web application doing a whole lot more than just displaying information.
I agree with the prevous remark. Portlets, as defined in JSR168, are "pluggable user interface components that provide a presentation layer to information systems" (Abdelnur and Hepper 2003). Furthermore, WSRP and JSR168 are not actually the same thing. JSR168 is a Java-based portlet standard, while WSRP is a language independent standard which tries to "leverage" several portlet standards as is explained in section 3.1 of the WSRP Specification. ......................................................................................................... --Roy 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC) asdfafd
[edit] Real-world examples of Portlets
It would be very useful on any Wiki entry for standards to point to real-world examples of an implementation and use of the standard being described. I believe iGoogle (www.iGoogle.com) is not an example of the JSR168 standard, but does anyone know of sites which are?bnbnbn
[edit] Is Wikipedia for the initiated only?
The definition given:
<"pluggable user interface components that are managed
and displayed in a web portal.">
...is hardly enlightening or satisfactory for the uninitiated, who are left in the same state of doubt or ignorance or wonder. This is a common flaw of specialists in every profession, the inability to talk in a clear language, devoid of buzzwords, and understandable to most if not all. In this case, the writer is addressing a specialized public, and that is not what WiKipedia (or any other Encyclopedia, for that matter) is supposed to be for. OR IS IT? --AVM (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As someone who is trying to break into java programming, I agree with you AVM, specialist should communicate in clearer language. I came across an interesting discussion about pluggability and in application called SocialText:
"Pluggability implies that pieces of code and configuration can be optional, added and removed as required. If, for example, we made it so any subclass of Socialtext::Plugin was optional and installable as a separate package, the default install and dependencies of Socialtext would drop considerably. Plugins have a stable interface..."
on
http://www.eu.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?gvh_pluggability
Maybe this could be developed into an article on pluggability. In my experience, buzzwords can be used by specialists to deliberately exclude non-specialists from their conversations and sometimes to hide a specialists lack of knowledge ;-) Wikimsd (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
