From: "Finn Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A question for those who have a good grasp of the current state of Pull
> tools and Intake in the Turbinen project:
>
> I've taken a look at the Scarab code, the documentation for the Pull tool
> service, and the Intake tool service. It seems the use of the Intake tool
> with actions and a request scope Pull tool (a la Scarab) is a clean way to
> implement the MVC model.
>
> However, I do have a few questions about this. The note at the top of the
> Intake service page says that Intake "is currently beta quality software and
> that it is still undergoing development and debugging." and "quite a few
> bugs and modifications have been made to Intake since it was released with
> 2.1."
>
> I'd prefer to stick with a stable version of Turbine/TDK (2.1). Does it make
> sense for me to use the Intake tool implementation which comes with 2.1? Or
> is it too buggy? If Intake in 2.1 has too many problems, does anyone know of
> a clean way to implement the MVC model, using the Pull tool, *without* using
> the Intake tool?
>
> At this point it seems like my two options for Intake are:
> - stable 2.1 Turbine with buggy Intake OR
> - buggy Turbine CVS-HEAD with less buggy Intake
>
> Is this true?
>
> I'd like to have a working beta/prototype of the webapp I'm working on by
> the end of August, so what's my best bet for getting started working on this
> right away?
>
> Thanks,
> -F
Don't confuse Pull with Intake - they are completely different things.
Defining a request scope pull tool is relatively easy - see the thread:
"Pull" model: Where do I start?
about 12 hours ago. The pull service works really well (production
quality) as evidenced by the fact that many of the turbine services are
implemented as pull tools.
Intake on the other hand is used for validating user input on forms.
I have developed an application that uses intake quite successfully.
I am using turbine 2.1 out of the box. I do have a few patches
applied, only one of which relates to intake and this only enhances
the diagnostic output produced when turbine is unable to write the
serialised intake rules to disk.
Action events, which you also mention are enabled by turbine itself
(probably some piece of turbine that I cannot readily identify as I
am so new to this). Check out:
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/howto/action-event-howto.html
I am pretty sure that you are primarily interested in writing a Pull
tool and using action events. Together these provide you with a
nice MVC architecture. You only need to consider intake when
you want to do server side validation of user input.
BTW: You should find an update to
org.apache.turbine.util.parser.BaseValueParser in CVS that fixes a
couple of small problems retrieving NumberKey and StringKey
parameters. This is not a Pull or Intake issue, but it may save you
a little time further down the track.
Cheers,
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
