> From: "Marc Lustig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'd like to let the list know that Henning has discouraged me to replace the > Turbine Security Service with his proposal and continue using the other > Turbine services. He explained that the only clean way is to switch > completely to the decoupled Fulcrum. That is good to know - I'll certainly have to qualify any recommendation I make to look at that code in the future. > > For my project the consequence is to either stay with T2.2b3 and switch to > the decoupled Fulcrum (completely) or to switch to Turbine 3. > I'm about to evaluate this today. I guess it will depend on where you see things going in the future. I get the impression that 2.x may be a better place to be if you have any intention to look at the plexus/summit stuff that Jason is working on. Interestingly, staying back on 2.1 seems to have been a fairly good strategy, but clearly not by design. I am pretty sure that the 2.x and 3.x code will live on even if plexus/summit becomes turbine 4.x (and I don't think there is any guarantee of that happening) - the reasons being that there are just too many people with 2.x production apps and John McNally has basically said that he will make sure that 3.x happens.
Good luck, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
