Was this not the whole idea behind Fulcrum? /c
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris K Chew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Turbine Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:19 AM Subject: RE: RFC: Going to Servlet API 2.3+? [Was: Re: New SessionService....] > It might be worthwhile to consider packaging services independently from the > turbine core...simply include the service jar in the classpath, and it gets > loaded at startup. Advantages of this modular system include: > > *reduced complexity of TR.props > > *delete unused jars and cease the ever-growing filesize of the applications > built upon turbine > > *more progressive steps can be made with services (such is in the case of > SessionService, where the question of api version requirements creeps in) > because many decisions will only be service-wide instead of framework-wide > > *Bug fixes are limited to a service, and consequently more easily > assimilated into production systems. For example, something like a bug fix > in the intake service won't require a whole new version of turbine (which > may use the latest version of Torque that uses primitives instead of Objects > for Primary Keys, and now I am scared to upgrade...etc.) > > *Isolate possibly conflicting dependencies > > Of course, the disadvantage is the added burden of maintaining the various > jars and service versions. But personally, and most software projects > eventually come to the same decision, I feel that this extra burden is more > than paid for by the flexibility gained in a modularized release system. > > Chris > > > -- > 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]>
