on 11/14/2000 11:03 PM, "Thomas Boehme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> subclassing and extending functionality (thereby specializing the behaviour)
> is standard practice in OO development. I would think you know that.
Of course I know that.
> If you
> believe that the Turbine framework does not require the Turbine servlet to
> be subclassed then make it a final class.
Already done.
> I have personally verified that super.init () is being called, so that's not
> a problem. To me all the things that Raphael put into the JetspeedServlet
> make perfectly sense.
Actually, they don't as they don't fall within the way that the framework
should be used. My major problem with Jetspeed is that many of the things
that it does within Turbine are not done correctly and these recent
overriding Turbine.java changes only compound that fact. I expressed my
views on this at ApacheCon to a room full of people.
If Jetspeed had been a success and people could rely on the code without
posting 900 emails about how to configure it and various other major design
problems with it, then that would have been one thing, but I had to spend a
whole bunch of time at ApacheCon telling people that just because Jetspeed
doesn't work properly, it isn't a bad reflection on Turbine's code. I'm
sorry, but I'm tired of that and so far, Jetspeed hasn't even begun to live
up to Apache release quality code. It shouldn't be 1.2, it should be 1.0a1
or not even released yet.
Sorry to be harsh, but that is what has happened with this project IMHO.
-jon
--
twice of not very much is still a lot more than not very much
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
