I hear you on the deprecation stuff, and normally I would agree..
But I think that Turbine 2.5 is at least a year away, and the sheer
volume of deprecated content is daunting. If you look at it, these
services are all deprecated:
* cache
* crypto
* factory
* localization
* mimetype
* pool
Not deprecated, but will be soon:
* intake
* pull
* xmlrpc
Not deprecated at all
* assemblerbroker
* naming
* schedule (should this be deprecated in favor of Quartz?)
* security (but maybe should be?)
Additionally, there is a TON of other non service related code that
has been deprecated in previous releases that will go. So, I don't
want to be dogmatic about "deprecated code exists for one release"
because I actually think that will actually not be in our users
favor. Users who have dependencies in 2.3 on deprecated code will
need to fix those to go to 2.4, so, if they are going to be doing
updates, I say get those over with, and force them to move to the
Avalon file configuration as well. Versus making a set of fixes for
2.3 -> 2.4, and then a second set of fixes for 2.4 -> 2.5.
I'm also concerned about the maintenance of code. Currently every
time a bugfix is applied in the T2.3 branch, one of the committers
has to catch it and apply it to the 2.4 trunk AND the corresponding
Fulcrum codebase. This has led to bug fixes being lost in the past.
And, getting new developers in is confusing, because of all the
duplication.
I want 2.4 to be a good foundation for the future, and I think that
keeping the old Turbine code doesn't help that.
I would also be interested in feedback (and help!) on converting the
remaining services to Fulcrum/Avalon.
Eric Pugh
On Oct 27, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
Hi Eric,
I'm just stating the obvious ...
1) deprecated stuff should stay around for at least one release -
no matter how little time is between two releases ... :-)
2) were there any commits regarding the deprecated Turbine services
not being reflected in the Fulcrum services?
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
Eric Pugh wrote:
Hi all,
In an attempt to chip away at the circular dependency between
T2.4 and Fulcrum Intake, I took the plunge of change T2.4 to use
the Fulcrum Factory and Pool services. I am ready to commit
that patch. I've attached a diff for review.
However, as I have gone through fixing everything, I have found
that MOST of the Turbine codebase is deprecated in favor of the
Fulcrum equivalents. Is there any really good reason to keep
them in the codebase, as the migration to Fulcrum is supposed to
REMOVE those things, not duplicate every service twice!
I'd like to remove the deprecated code in a seperate commit.
Comments?
Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
