> a) 2.1 should be considered End of Life. Expend almost no energy to fixing > bugs, but perhaps be nice and friendly and help out anyone with ways to > rebuild 2.1 source to fix the issue. (we're using 2.1 so I'm okay with this > if (b) follows).
+1 > b) release 2.2 final in some form. Coupled or not, it's just gotta work. I > know our company will not touch 2.2 or anything further until everyone on > the Turbine dev team is happy it's no longer Beta. Bloated/Coupled or not, > this has to be pretty close to a final release version? +1 -- Is it good enough for the people using it? Is Jetspeed still at this level? > c) My gut from reading about it is that Summit/Plexus sounds like a great > foundation for a new version of Turbine, so I am interested in what others > have to say about Summit (am I right in thinking that "Summit is a > kinda-Turbine built on Plexus foundations, which in turn is based on > Avalon/Phoenix"?) You are correct. It is also _brand_new_ so who knows what will happen. > I love Turbine 2.1, warts and all, but it is pretty big and has a steep > learning curve. From the UML diagram of Summit sent on this list, it looks > like Summit is much much leaner, and I'm pretty impressed if that UML > diagram sent around sums it up, and still provides (most of) the > functionality of a Turbine-type-thing. (please correct me if I am way off > track here). Again, you are correct, but that leanness comes at the cost of some complexity. Summit only accounts for the things Jason uses, which rules out tools, anything other than velocity for templating, probably other things... so the model may need to get more complex if we want to use it for turbine. ( My understanding is that Jason never planned that, he is implementing what Zenplex needs to get Tambora out the door -- if we want to use it as the foundation for a new Turbine that is okay too though =) > I applaud the attempts to have a TDK, but perhaps for new versions rather > than a TDK, some more thorough docs & Faq's might be easier for the dev > team, and more useful in the long run. +1!!!! > I'll end this by thanking all the people who have over the time built > Turbine what it is today. I'm impressed, and it's helped me a bunch. After reading all the poll responses I have one big question: There has been talk about providing some sort of optional compatibility layer for the next version of Turbine which would allow 2.2 apps to run out of the box on the new core. This would probably use aspects and namespace tricks and other magic. My opinion is that I (as a user) would never touch such a thing -- my 2.1 and 2.2 apps would continue to run on those platforms and any new apps or apps I am extending would get ported to the new platform. But that is only my opinion... how do 2.x users feel about this idea? Thanks, James -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
