I think it's important to understand the different priorities of OpenACS and P/O to avoid unnecessary negative emotions in the future. Because at the end the community lives from the contributions of its member and members from the support of the community:
I supose the priorities for the OpenACS leadership team are to guarantee the interoperability of the code and to maintain coherence in the community. Is that more or less correct?
The current priorities of the P/O team are:
1. Satisfy some customers
2. Get P/O running on 4.6 and
3. Get rid of Oracle in order to involve more community members and to extend the potential customer base.
4. Adapt P/O to 4.6/5.0 object, permissions, templates etc.
That's because without some quick results from 1 there are not 2 and 3 and 4. And 2 is a necessary step before 3 and 4. I hope that sounds reasonable.
Concerning the adaptation to objects, permissions and templates:
- I'm not 100% happy with the permission management as it exists with P/O today, because it is currently a function of the user profile and it doesn't take into account object characteristics, which is necessary in many cases. Also, there is quite some code redundancy. So a reorganization of permissions could lead to a permission system integrated with the rest of OpenACS.
- P/O employs hardly any content management functionality so all the related OpenACS functionality doesn't apply.
- The application of templates to "components" (~portlets?) is an open question that we need to discuss more in detail.
So the area of potential "conflict" is actually quite limited. I propose that we continue the discussion in February when priority 2 is finished and eveybody can analyze the P/O code on their own systems. I'm curious to see how much interest is going to be exhibited by the community to advance with priorities 3 and 4. I still wonder why the old Intranet module hasn't been ported and published yet...