Meaningless Drivel is fun!
The moose likes Portals and Portlets and the fly likes Aren't IBM Portlet API based on JSR 168? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Portals and Portlets
Bookmark "Aren Watch "Aren New topic

Aren't IBM Portlet API based on JSR 168?

ankur rathi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 3830

When we create portlet project in RAD (or in WSAD, RSA etc), it asks us to specify portlet API. The options are: JSR 168 Portlet and IBM Portlet.

What my understanding is:

JSR 168 is portlet specification provided by Sun. How can we create portlet with just specification? And one of the implementation of JSR 168 is IBM Portlet. Right?

I hope you got my doubt.

Which implementation it uses when we choose JSR 168 Portlet in portlet API?

Cameron Wallace McKenzie
author and cow tipper
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 4968

Hold on, hold on, hold on!!!

An IBM portlet uses something called the JetSpeed API, and it is IBM's own implementation of the JetSpeed API that you are using when you create an "IBM Portlet." This is an ancient API found alongside the dead sea scrolls in the middle east many years ago.

JSR-168 is a portlet development standard agreed upon by a variety of industry experts. So, you can use the old legacy API, or, you can create a JSR-168 portlet that fits the standard.

Legacy JetSpeed portlet? Well, probably won't be well supported in future releases.

JSR-168 Portlet? You're looking at greater support, knowledgebase, and future enhancements.

Interestingly though, the JetSpeed can actually be considered a bit more full featured with facilities such as PortletMessaging and a PortletSession that inherits directly from the HttpSession. JSR-168 is different in these respects.

If you want a good book on JSR-168 Portlet Development, I know where you can find one.

Kind regards,

-Cameron McKenzie
I agree. Here's the link:
subject: Aren't IBM Portlet API based on JSR 168?
It's not a secret anymore!