L*******r
发帖数: 1011 | 1 I just downloaded rainbow. And I remembered you said weblogic portal were
better than some .Net portal projects, including rainbow.
Would you please tell us what are the "problems" of this project, comparing
with weblogic portal?
Such as:
1. Software architecture
2. Scalability and robustness
3. Performance
4. Security
5. feature set (modules), customization
6. Management
7. developing utility.
thanks. | C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 2 Rainbow is nothing more than a bunch of modules above IBUYSPY.
It's good. Depends how you look at it. It's not a good 3 tier architecture,
but that's because most modules are too damn simple, you don't need 3 tier.
Good.
Good.
Good
Good.
Good.
Good.
Don't go for Rainbow. Wait for .Net 2.0, some major change in .Net 2.0 would
place an impact on Web Architecture. | L*******r
发帖数: 1011 | 3 hmm... What's your standard for "good"? And what's the reason for "good",
comparing with weblogic portal? If it is good, why you are so eager for .Net
2.0?
thanks.
I have read the new features of .Net 2.0. Those features are not really new
for me. We can invent the same features without .Net 2.0. You can write your
own translators to have .Net 2.0 features. It's not hard if you really want
to.
They are just features that should be added long times ago.
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: Rainbow is nothing more than a bunch of modules above IBUYSPY.
: It's good. Depends how you look at it. It's not a good 3 tier architecture,
: but that's because most modules are too damn simple, you don't need 3 tier.
: Good.
: Good.
: Good
: Good.
: Good.
: Good.
: Don't go for Rainbow. Wait for .Net 2.0, some major change in .Net 2.0 would
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 4
Portal is a portal. IBUYSPY/Rainbow is an entry point portal. It works well on
what it meant to do, I call that good. I didn't call that excellent.
You are right on this, it should be there long time ago.
1. Generics. Which will simplify a lot of works.
2. Master Pages. Too many people (include me) invent their own template
framework, now you'd better give up your own and use Master page, because
it's integrited with Whidbey, it will be more productive even it's not as good
as the one you inve
【在 L*******r 的大作中提到】
: hmm... What's your standard for "good"? And what's the reason for "good",
: comparing with weblogic portal? If it is good, why you are so eager for .Net
: 2.0?
: thanks.
: I have read the new features of .Net 2.0. Those features are not really new
: for me. We can invent the same features without .Net 2.0. You can write your
: own translators to have .Net 2.0 features. It's not hard if you really want
: to.
: They are just features that should be added long times ago.
| p***n
发帖数: 635 | 5 when you talk about stuff like 1,2,3,4. it really depends heavily on the
framework it is based on and tied to, which is .NET.
as for 5-7 it doesn't really provide a whole lot in terms of feature set,
however,a lot of stuff being used in ordinary portal applications is already
there.
IMHO, it is not fair to compare commerical product like Weblogic portal to
projects like Rainbow,which are developed in a much less controlled and organized manner.
well, they still managed to roll out an RC recent
【在 L*******r 的大作中提到】
: I just downloaded rainbow. And I remembered you said weblogic portal were
: better than some .Net portal projects, including rainbow.
: Would you please tell us what are the "problems" of this project, comparing
: with weblogic portal?
: Such as:
: 1. Software architecture
: 2. Scalability and robustness
: 3. Performance
: 4. Security
: 5. feature set (modules), customization
|
|
