To summarize what has been discussed so far....
1) Drop stratum lifecycle interfaces. They will be replaced with the Avalon lifecycle interfaces. 2) We need to decide if Fulcrum will have it's own container or if it will just be a collection of components. Note: I am not talking about writing a container. We would simply use ECM or some other like product. 3) The entire services layer will be deprecated. A new method of accessing the components will be used to replace the old functionality that the services layer provided. 4) We will use a customized LoggerFactory component that uses commons-logging. 5) We will create a conversion program to convert the existing service configuration into an Avalon compatible XMl format. 6) All of the components should be compatible with ECM and Plexus. We really need more discussion on this goal to determine what this will require and if there are other containers that we want to be compatible with. We have already discussed having the ability to load Avalon components as being part of the plan for Turbine 2.3. Perhaps if we can get Fulcrum ready, it can be released at the same time?? I will try to get a Tiki page created for all of this sometime today or the next. > -----Original Message----- > From: Quinton McCombs > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:20 AM > To: Turbine Developers List > Subject: RE: Turbine, Fulcrum, and Avalon > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gonzalo Diethelm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 7:17 AM > > To: Turbine Developers List > > Subject: RE: Turbine, Fulcrum, and Avalon > > > > > > > On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 16:20, Quinton McCombs wrote: > > > > I would like to propose that we drop stop using the > > stratum lifecyle > > > > interfaces altogether in favor of Avalon's interfaces. > > > > +1 (although I think I'm still a committer, I consider my vote > > to be non-binding, since it's been REALLY long since I have > > contributed anything to Turbine). > > > > >From what little I understand about all the issues here, I > > would try to go with Fortress as a single, unified container > > for Turbine; initially, I would keep the static accessors as > > a facade, for compatibility reasons, but I think those should > > eventually be deprecated. > > > > +1 I say deprecate them as soon as we have a DOCUMENTED method of > accessing the components without going through the services layer. > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- > > Gonzalo A. Diethelm > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:turbine-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For > > additional commands, > > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-dev-> [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]>
