Pat Monardo wrote: >I have a hard time asking this on the mailing list because it is based >on so much ignorance. I am wondering if you could counter some of my >questions about Turbine's directions. >
ok, let's try again on the mailing list ;-) keep in mind that all people workin on turbine (and other jakarta projects) also have a job to earn their money .. so it seems sometimes people are ignoring your questions, but in reality they just haven't enough time :-( >Issue 1. While I am not a fan of JSP or Cocoon, I am not that much >excited by Velocity either. I like Jelly's approach and it seems that it >would make a great tool for working within a webserver as well. I would >say that JSP and Cocoon etc get things backwards: why start off life >embedded in a server page environment and expose that complexity to >users? I bet Jelly could work perfectly well embedded in a webserver but >of course I don't know that. But does this matter to Turbine? Probably >not it seems, so Issue 1 is not a big deal. > > > >Issue 2. O/R mapping. I don't know if I like Torque. It has a very >intrusive model, as OJB would put it. Can Torque really compete with >OJB? I have doubts. But is it designed to be classic/easy to use system? >Or is Turbine moving away from it and embracing OJB? > turbine will support torque AND ojb in future versions. ojb has more features and a better design (my 0.02 $) .. torque is easier to use (you just need to write the schema.xml and everything is set up for you) i started to extend torque to generate all the stuff needed to make ojb as simple to use as torque. i'm using torque for some projects with 40+ tables ... i would like to switch to ojb .. but it has to be really easy to do so (i'm thinking about generating the om/peers using ojb instead og torque, so you hjust need to regenerate the om/peer classes to switch ;-) >Issue 3. Service framework. So many changes? What will be left of >fulcrum if Turbine moves to Avalon service framework? I know stratum is >gone but does fulcrum disappear as well? > maybe someone working on the avalon stuff could answer this one ... fulcrum will not disappear .. fulcrum services will become avalon components >So what's left of Turbine going forward? It could be the top-level >driver of the presentation layer and make services easy to use. Avalon >doesn't do that, so Turbine could be layer on top of Avalon that >presents a coherent / convenient view of the whole platform. > > > >If you feel you could answer these questions (with full >confidentiality!) I would appreciate it. If you think these questions >are appropriate for a mailing list, then I will do so. I would really >like to get a better picture here. I see people wanting to compare >Turbine and Struts but this is a bigger question about the entire >application server platform for Tomcat! > we should provide better documentation here ... some kind of a roadmap would be good martin > > >Thanks for any help. I really like the Jakarta project and so I am >really looking for a bright future here. Don't let my ignorance >overshadow my excitement for all of this technology! > > > >Pat Monardo > > > > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
