On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 11:56 AM, Eric Pugh wrote: > Hom many issues has Scarab had with running on T3.. I am beta testing > Scarab, and it seems pretty solid.. Why would I want to go to 2.2 with > all > the security/user issues, versus just going to T3?
I see this as a simple question of risk. Turbine 3 is solid code, but it hasn't been released yet so the deprecation rules don't apply. If you don't mind fixing things as the API evolves, then go for it. If you prefer a conservative approach, 2.1 has the most functionality that also has a stable API. It's the safest bet. It's regrettably dated, but nevertheless the best conservative choice. In between there is 2.2 which is partly intended to ease the migration to 3.0. It is backward compatible with 2.1 in accordance with the deprecation rules. And it will also provide access to the decoupled Torque and Fulcrum. But as you already know 2.2 still has some rough edges in the coupling to the old torque and fulcrum for security and upload (and maybe other areas as well). So at the moment the backward compatibility is there in 2.2, but the use of decoupled Torque and Fulcrum has some sticking points which no one has taken the time to work out yet. It's likely that I will get to this eventually unless Martin or Jason beat me to it. But if you don't want to wait for my (or Martin's or Jason's) schedule, patches would be quite welcome. 8^) I would selfishly recommend the 2.2 release. As soon as one person (maybe you 8^) chooses to fix the security and upload coupling in 2.2, then a lot of the confusion around these different versions would be reduced substantially. -Eric -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
