On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Quinton McCombs wrote: > Fulcrum was never released. There has also been some work backporting > code from Fulcrum into the turbine-2 code base. I would anticipate that > there will be even more work to get the remaining services backported as > well. > > The current plan is NOT to use Fulcrum for version 2.3. We do want to > be able to Avalon components. Considering that we want this ability in > 2.3 and we don't currently use Fulcrum, I see no reason not to modify > Fulcrum to use Avalon. > > Turbine users should have mostly stayed away from Fulcrum. Those that > did move to Fulcrum should have noticed that they were using alpha/beta > code. They chose to be on the bleeding edge. Development version are > prone to being unstable. I don't see the proposed changes as being much > of a problem. > > I would like to see it working for just one or two services first, > though. This would give us all a chance to see exactly how it will be > implemented. This first phase of the Avalonization would be like a > proof of concept.
Quinton, SecurityService aside, the only thing that is unstable about the code currently in Fulcrum is the build system. The instability was caused by the porting of a fragile and slightly crufty Ant build file to Maven during its early days and a failure to keep it up to date. Templating systems aside, the services in Fulcrum are of equal (or possibly better) quality than the ones in Turbine 2.3, and include more features. Many (but not all) of those features have been gradually backported. - Dan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
