On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 18:50, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > > Folks, > > please. We do not try to build Avalon-light or an Avalon clone. > Staring at foreign code and rebuilding every interface from another > project will not help us.
I think John has gone the correct path in converting Fulcrum over to just plain use Avalon. > Compared to Avalon, Turbine is really lightweight and simple. Are you kidding? In what respect do you find Turbine more lightweight and simple? I cannot think of a single example for which Turbine is lighter or simpler. Can you give me any? The entire lifecycle for Avalon components and containers is contained in a ~60k JAR. All components are well defined and live out their existance in a well defined manner. Nothing in Turbine 2.x is well defined and nothing lives out its existance in a well defined manner. The service code is one example of complete confusion and obscurity. Torque, though I have not looked at it, began its lifecycle with a call to Criteria. If that is not confusing and unintuitive I don't know what is. The security service, the lifecycle of a request ... none of these thing are clear. In a component framework like Avalon these entities are forced, by the patterns inherent in the framework, to be clear. Nothing in Turbine 2.x is clear. Period. > I'll try > to keep it that way. You want to keep it a completely and totally unintuitive mess? > If we can use synergies with Avalon, fine. If > not, well, if you need all the features of Avalon, why not use Avalon > in the first place? We do not try to be an end-all, be-all solution > which replaces all other web-application frameworks. We do not need to > be "best-of-brand" in every category. We're not even trying to > compete. :-) Speak for yourself. > I see logging for Turbine as a way to offer a centralized, easy to use > and flexible facility for applications and services. All this does > commons-logging in conjunction with log4j (or JDK 1.4) offer. > > I'll keep this code simple, hardcoded and out of the lifecycle > code. There is no doubt that logging is a fundamental aspect to an application. In Avalon it's attached to each component and works fairly well in that environment. In Turbine it definitely doesn't work well as a service which is why it was removed as such in the turbine 3 code base. At the very least if you're going to start making 2.x like 3.x use the 3.x code. > Reason: You'll end up with a mess like in the current Turbine. What if > you want to log messages before your ServiceBroker/ComponentContainer > has even started? Been discussed which is why it was removed as a service in 3.x. > Remember the posting about the stratum message > popping out of Stdout because of this. Logging is simply the second > thing that we will set up right after startup (First thing is reading > the conf because we need this for configuring the logging). That's it. > > Regards > Henning -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
