On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 15:41, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >consider you a foe, I essentially consider you a bad thing that has > >happened to Turbine. > > Care to elaborate?
I thought I did. That you make many changes but there is little or no discussion in the IRC logs or on the mailing lists. I'm completely fine with informal discussions, that's generally how things have been done. You admittedly also have a "secret agenda" which also doesn't sound like a good thing. > What exactly do you consider "bad"? That I work on a code base that > you consider dead? But that's not where you're heading. You are working in a direction that is replication of what's in Turbine 3.x. The Turbine 2.x code is dead but you're doing exactly the same things I've already done with the 3.x code and after I did that I realized it was still heavily flawed. So yes, you're working on the 2.x code base which is, I believe a dead end, but you are trying to take it to the same place it is already in 3.x by replicating work and ignoring mechanisms like Avalon. > That people like Martin Poeschl got a Turbine 2.2 > release done instead of simply telling people "Hey, we moved on to > something completely new, either you follow us or you must live with > the broken Turbine 2.1 / 2.2-dev code". I did move on, I don't see anything wrong with that. I have a 2.x application which works just fine but in the face of change it has many, many, inumerable limitations and I want to provide something better. I know the 2.x code backward and forward and it's fundamentally flawed and you can't fix it without drastically changing the underpinnings. I never intended to take as long as I did in providing a solution but that's how things go. I make no apology as work and life make little time. > Why do you say > > 12:10:15 PM <jason> i honestly thing that's great that you're working > with 2.x, users need it." (http://irc.werken.com/channels/turbine/3-13-03.txt) > > if you actually think that I'm "essentially a bad thing that happened > to Turbine"? In the respect that you provide patches and fixes that 2.x users require I think it's great. In the direction you are taking the code I think that's bad. As a maintenance effort superb, as a future endeavor I think dangerous. Having good and bad aspects simultaneously is not impossible. I'm not trying to relegate your efforts to that of a 'janitor' as you put it. I just think efforts now would serve 2.x users to find a way to run 2.x apps inside Summit (which will run inside Avalon containers other than Plexus) where there is the pipeline and pluggagle everything. This path could incorporate any and all code that has been worked on to date but allow users any path they wish to take in the future because everything is pluggable. > That the remaining developers try to clean up the confusion around > Turbine, Version 2.x, T3, Fulcrum and all this stuff and want users to > actually be able to follow the direction we want to go? Who is we? I am still one of the we and I guarantee you I will have a decent chance at convincing a large portion of the user base with working code that Summit can provide a solution. In addition that Plexus coupled with Summit can provide an even better solution when users discover that they would like something other than a webview for their application models. I am not opposed to separating the repositories to be run as different projects. I'm all for it. Like I said I'm not going to interfere with the 2.x code. I ultimately think it's a dead end. I will get 2.x applications to run in Summit and I will provide a path, one path. You follow your path and we'll let the users decide. I have zero problem with that. If you want to partitiion off the repositories into separate pseudo projects that is completely within our juridiction to do. My path is clear: I'm going to create a set of tools based on Plexus, Maven and a series of Maven plugins to provide a application framework that works from the model as the fundamental unit of work. This is not what Turbine currently is and one of its fundamental limitations. The model clearly separate from the view, a component-based system with clear separation of concerns. Turbine in it's current form is a universe away from that. Pete has deployed his first application with Plexus/Summit and I have deployed a couple betas and I'm at the point where it is possible to start documenting everything and making a pitch to Turbine 2.x users. > Is this in > your opinion a bad thing? That we might move in baby steps, care about > the deprecation rules that you yourself helped setting up, try to have > stable releases before doing something new? Do you consider this > "bad"? There are times when this is good and there are times when this isn't. The number of times you will have to deprecate across versions is going to be huge. If you want to take that path that's fine, in this particular case I think that it would be easier in the long run for users to adhere to better practices and try to work in a component-based environment. I think Turbine is highly functional, no one will argue that but is flawed in far too many ways to ever be a tool that can be learned and extended quickly. My primary concern is not to have a tool with a high rate of adoption as that would be a natural side effect of having a good body of code and that's never going to happen with Turbine in it's current form. Hasn't happened in last 4 years and it's not going to happen without fundamental change. > That at least some developers try to restore confidence into the > Turbine code base; that it will have a future as "Turbine" instead of > creating half a dozen subprojects with cool names which never had any > official releases and then got abandoned over night (JCS, Fulcrum, > Stratum) or folded at some point into another apache project. Do you > _honestly_ think that this was "a good thing" to happen to Turbine? The split should only ever have been used in the Turbine 3.x code base. I have said before it was a mistake to have ever introduced any of these changes into 2.x. But otherwise, yes I think the decoupling of Fulcrum and Torque were a good thing. People wanted to use Fulcrum because Scarab was driving the development of many of the services that people wanted. Hindsight always provides a better view and in retrospect I would have been happy if Turbine 2.x was left alone. It's easy to attack what's happened in the past but it's not like I had any malicious intent. I was trying to separate the code in an attempt to make it available to a wider audience but the coupling was too hard to overcome and I started looking for other alternatives. Again, pursue your path. We can create create fully separated projects. I don't agree with what you're doing. But we don't have to agree. You are free to do what you like as am I. If you can convince 2.x users that you've got what they need then great, but I'm going to try to do the same. I do feel responsible for how I split up the code and left things hanging but I honestly didn't have a solution to offer until recently. > That you gave up at one point, pulled your code out of the Jakarta > CVS, because (at least that's what my memory tells me, sorry if I'm > wrong here) you prefer working on this off-jakarta. Why didn't you try > to communicate with the developers who are not present @ irc but > preferred to move out? I certainly had and still have my doubts about Jakarta. I am far more involved in the under belly and have a far better understanding of what goes on around here. What I did or didn't do at this point I feel is irrelevant. What's important is that I'm going to try and offer something back. I definitely think it was a better idea to develop Summit outside of Jakarta. Turbine 3 took a path I definitely didn't expect. I worked on it as an experiment, an initial refactoring of Turbine 2 and I didn't want it used but it was and I stopped aggressively changing it because there were people trying to deploy apps. I'm happy that Plexus/Summit have incubated elsewhere. I don't see a problem with that as anyone who was interested from Turbine has participated in Plexus/Summit. We also had two users who became core developers so I don't see it as a negative thing at all. > I simply don't understand you. Maybe it's my lack of language command. > Maybe I don't really understand your motivations or you have some > motives that you don't want to reveal yet, which drive you to do what > you do. Sorry, I'm lost here. I'll try to explain in further messages and documentation. I don't wish to cause any more unecessary confusion. > I wish you all the best with Plexus/Summit and if you really crush the > current Turbine development under your foot, I hope you will get > satisfaction out of it and if all the Turbine users come crawling to > the great unified web application solution, great. I'm not trying to crush anything, I'm trying to continue what I started long ago. I don't feel obliged to explain my hiatus but I'm certainly going to try and provide what I initially intended. > But please, until then, let the remaining Turbine developers work on > what _they_ consider useful and if you feel not being involved in > discussions about the Turbine code base, maybe its because you're > (your words) no longer a committer in the true sense of the word. I am not a committer on the 2.x code base, but any of the decoupling as well as Turbine 3.x I consider primarly my work which I plan to pursue with Plexus and Summit. > I (and I think every other Turbine developer but I can't really speak > for them) do welcome you, your opinions and ideas on the -dev > list. But you might understand, even if you don't like it, that we > might move at a slower pace or even with other ideas than you do. That's cool. I will try in that respect to paint a picture of what I think would be an ideal solution. Something that lets people work from the application model and building out from that where different views can be added as components and concerns like security can be added upon the model and not intrinsically bound to it. I'm not expecting anyone to jump aboard anytime quickly. I don't mind working at this but I think the let of tools are finally available to make this happen. > And because the developers don't use irc.werken.com to discuss, this > doesn't mean that there is no discussion at all. I realize that, but I do follow the mailing lists as well and do see much in the way architectural discussion. I'm always getting slagged for not providing much in the way of a roadmap but I don't see one around here either. At any rate I started the Maven roadmap today and will try to do the same shortly for what I see as the roadmap for Turbine. > Regards > Henning -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
