I have to agree with you on this Henning. There is a lot of confusion at the moment concerning the future of Fulcrum and perhaps due to this also Turbine which is probably hindering users to actually use it. Why should you migrate to Fulcrum if it's going to be gone in a few weeks/months??
It was my understanding that there would be a 2.2 release without (specifically) Fulcrum followed by a 2.3 release WITH Fulcrum. These would probably be acceptable steps for the user base until T3 with/without Avalon gets sorted out. The migration to T3, although technically cool, may be too large for some, certainly at the moment. /Colin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: hometree.jakarta.turbine.dev To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 7:14 PM Subject: Re: Turbine 3 direction > James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 12:38, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > >> Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> >> You have many services that we don't yet have, and IMHO we could make > >> >> a common repository for these Components... > >> > >> >+1, a common repository would be useful. How about a > >> >jakarta-avalon-components module in SVN/CVS? > >> > >> Hm, > >> > >> while the idea is cool, I'd prefer to get the fulcrum stuff to > >> actually work with T2 and T3 and then migrate a stable code base. The > >> current fulcrum code base is "preliminary" at best... :-) > >> > >> Please allow us to make at least one Fulcrum release before migrating > >> to yet another platform... > > >I'm a little confused about the direction of fulcrum right now. My > > Just like all of us. :-) > > >understanding was that Turbine 2.2 is going to be released _without_ it > >(just decoupled torque, not other services), and we've been talking > >about Turbine 3 using Avalon for its component needs. > > Yes. Turbine 2.2 will be with coupled services in o.a.turbine.services. > It will work without Fulcrum. You can, however, use Fulcrum as a > component with the ComponentService ( :-) ) and then use the fulcrum > services with the T2 framework. > > T3 currently has no own services and uses Fulcrum. There is no T3 and > no Fulcrum release yet, so I'd like to see a Turbine 3 release and a > Fulcrum release to get a stable base for post-T3 development. ATM > there doesn't seem to be too much T3 development at all, because all > of the main developers went off to other projects. T3 needs the > pipeline polished and documented so more people start using it. > > After this release (T 3.0), we should decide on a direction, where to > go with T3 and Fulcrum. Some developers seem to prefer that T3 should > be "service compatible" with avalon (which in my limited understanding > seems to be a generic application framework while Turbine is a > supercharged servlet). So T3 will be some sort of "avalon light for > servlet based applications"? Fine, as long as we don't scare the > current Turbine users away. > > Personally, I'm a little scared about "being run over by Avalon". :-) > > And in search of docs, I'm upset by links like this: > http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/phoenix/what-is-a-block.html ... %-) > (So, can anyone actually tell me what a block really is?) > > >Thus, my expectation was that fulcrum would be disolved, and the > >services there that need to / should be retained would be converted to > >components for Turbine 3. > > ATM I don't see no reason why any component of Fulcrum should be > dropped. Maybe the db service, because it is no longer necessary. > > Personally I'm more interested to give people already using T2.1 and > wanting to migrate to T2.2 and T3 an easy way to go ahead without > having to rewrite large gobs of their code. Small changes, fine. Large > changes, there we need migration pathes. > > >Am I off base here? > > No. I think the Avalon Framework ideas are really cool. I just > consider them much "larger" than the Turbine framework project. And I > don't want our small user base being flattened by it. > > Regards > Henning > > > -- > Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer > INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
