You are correct about Fulcrum will become a more generic component library. Although actually, at this time, I would be quite happy in declaring that it IS a component library not tied to Turbine.
None of the released components depend on Turbine at all, though of course, due to their heritage, they are primarily used with Turbine. Some of the unreleased components are somewhat Turbine specific, such as template, and may have limited utility. They may end up moving to the jakarta-turbine-2 code base. The idea is that any component that needs turbine should be IN the Turbine codebase, with an org.apache.turbine package. Org.apache.fulcrum really should be completely reusable outside of Turbine. I hate to ask the "When is Fortress 2 Done" question, b/c I know how bad form it is. But I'll have to ask, as it may make sense for us to just shoot ECM, and use Yaafi, with the idea of waiting till Fortress 2 comes out, and swapping to that. Eric On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:52:04 -0500, J Aaron Farr wrote > Thanks for the clarifications. I'm very interested in seeing what > Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks. > > > I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of minutes. > > It should be simple to make simple things. > > Exactly. > > IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better > documentation and we can definitely make it more simple. The goal of > Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary. > > So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic > component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right? > > -- > jaaron > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenSource Connections (http://www.opensourceconnections.com) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
