on 2003/2/2 2:42 AM, "Ilkka Priha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Jon, I appreciate your support. It would be really fine for me to > get Tammi back under Turbine, but I don't believe on making it much more > compatible with earlier versions as it is now. Is that acceptable? A 4.0 release doesn't necessarily need to be backwards compatible. My personal view is that Turbine 3.0 is a dead end. It is a great working framework (Scarab is built on it!), but the general community support for it is long gone mostly because we haven't put the effort in to finish it yet. It is also full of to much legacy code that we have all learned a tremendous amount from, but would do differently the next time. I have been waiting to see what happens with Summit, but haven't really seen anything come of it yet. That is why I like your code...at first glance of the source, it looks quite good and the documentation is a great start. Minor Typo: Figure 10 says: "The facory package" > Also, the recent plans for Turbine's new service framework are somewhat > overlapping with Tammi's JMX architecture. Our goal has been to keep the > architecture as flat as possible by avoiding any hierarchical structures > and I'd like to keep it that way. Yes, we will need to figure something out about that. I need to brush up on my JMX skills and review your code more so that I can make a clear argument for or against it. It seems that your use of JMX and Avalon kind of overlap. My general dislike for anything Sun produces seems like that might be a problem. I'm open for discussion on it if you are. > But if the community accepts Tammi as the continuation of Turbine, I'd > be the first for it. That is good news! -jon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
