Stephen Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So besides forgetting my initial +1, there is another alternative
>where we keep the TurbineXxx classes, and the Service interface, but
>still (preferably) kill BaseService/ServiceBroker/BaseServiceBroker
>and instead add a AvalonToServiceAdaptor class that implements
>Service.
Ok, here comes my vote.
It is +0
And I will tell you, why:
Basically I've been persuaded over the last few weeks that going with
the Avalon lifecycle is a good thing. So I will want to get the
Services both from Turbine and Fulcrum put together in a "best of both
worlds" scenario and then converted to the lifecycle. At the same time
we will have turbine-2.4-dev which will be ready to use these
services. By going so we will transition smooth from our current
Turbine to a Turbine + Container + Avalonized Services.
If we pull the plug right now and do a massive "this is now Avalonized
and we pull the plug on the stuff being usable with Turbine 2.2 and
2.3-dev" then at least for me there is not much sense to continue
developing on Turbine 2.3-dev. I would put a branch tag into the
turbine-2 repository and start working on a massively changed Turbine
code which is able to use a (any?) avalon container to start up
services, change the integrated services (as long as they're not
already in Fulcrum, because Turbine + Fulcrum will be my code
base. Just as it is internal to INTERMETA since many months).
I will have such a bugger running in a few weeks, mainly because I
already have much of that code in place in our internal CVS. This code
base is already quite diverted from the jakarta CVS which is why it
takes me much more time to back port things like the
TorqueSecurityService to the jakarta turbine-2.
But: To hell with deprecation. Interface compatibility, backward
compatibility and everything else. We will have a new code base that
shares some code with the current turbine. Then we can as well rename
it (just as Jason did with Plexus).
And the "to hell with deprecation" is what makes my vote +0.
And the fact that for 2.3-dev from the already thinned out developers
base (In fact, at the moment it's Martin, Quinton and me) at least me
will no longer work on the turbine-2 HEAD. Then we can abandon it as
well. And kiss our current user base finally goodbye.
At least I have only two hands, have a daytime job which is
turbine-related (ATM) but keeps my time to work on currently two code
bases short. I will not work on three code bases.
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]>
