I don't want to get involved in the personality clash that is currently
dominating the list, but I would be +1 for a Turbine 1.0 (if
non-contributors can vote that is).
Although I don't contribute to the Turbine code, I am in the middle of two
Turbine projects and have evangelised (British spelling) enough about it to
get a multinational electronics company to consider using it instead of a
microsoft solution. It would help Turbines case a lot if it wasn't Beta.
One of the reasons stated by this company for possibly not using Turbine is
the lack of documentation in comparison to ASP's etc, as they are worried
that it will take too long to train their staff to develop with it.
I am not saying you overworked developers should drop everything and write a
users guide, but if you want Turbine to be selected over the alternatives
currently available in the market, somebody should write one. But who? I
know I haven't the time (or system knowledge) to do it.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: jon * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: Turbine 1.0? (Vote?)
> on 1/30/00 8:55 PM, Jim Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, lets put it this way. I am very busy doing clients work so I would
like
> > perhaps a simple HOTO, or similar intorduction document on doing some
> > development. Yes, I could go through the javadoc's but they don't tell
you
> > where to start, middle and end. Yes, I could go through Jyve, and
> > try some variations on it ...
> >
> > I guess I haven't been following the development that closely, so for
someone
> > like you who have been deep in the development cycle, of course using
Turbine
> > is easy, of course you can get things to work ...
>
> Well, what do you expect? Come on, I'm not going to hold your hand and
baby
> sit you through things. You DO need to do some research and learning on
your
> own. ;-) This stuff really isn't that difficult.
>
> I see what you mean though, a simple HowTo for a basic website is a good
> idea. I will try to write something up this week. You must understand that
> is not the focus of Turbine though. The focus is on complex systems.
>
> > Funny, I'm sure you posted a message about Dash in the middle of
december
> > that end of January was your deadline for the client project ...
>
> Yes, we are nearing that deadline, but we have been working on this
project
> since last May. It is a rather complicated project. John and Frank have
done
> an excellent job on it and it is a beautiful web application.
>
> >> What exactly does that mean ("development path to a Java2
environment")?
> >> Turbine runs just fine in a Java2 environment.
> >
> > Well, I suppose running JSDK 2.2 might be a start.
>
> Huh? What does that have to do with Java2? As I said before, Turbine works
> just fine with any JSDK 2.0 (and higher) servlet engine.
>
> > I've seen your rant about
> > why you don't understand why they called the environment Java2 instead
> > of 1.2,
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> > and judging by your response to me and others, I'm glad you're
> > not in customer support.
>
> Well duh, that is why I am NOT in customer support, I'm a R&D Engineer. I
> personally don't give a shit about customer support. You aren't even my
> customer! ;-)
>
> For what it is worth, I'm a lot more concerned with coming up with quality
> software than am I about holding people's hands and walking them through
FAQ
> problems.
>
> > Also, not using any depreciated API's (you
> > might not now ... again, it's a time thing for me to check)
>
> We are not using any depreciated API's. If we did in the past, it was by
> mistake and we quickly fixed the issues.
>
> > I can't find the messages now, but there the was some discussion and
> > development earlier about the use some Jserv internals and Jserv had
> > to be modified to meet the need, I think it was providing an enumeration
> > over a dataset instead of a hash ... wich I could find the message ...
>
> I know exactly what you are talking about. As I already said, we put those
> classes into Turbine. Look in the org.apache.java.util packages. The
reason
> they are not in a org.apache.jserv packages (even within JServ) is because
> that is code that we wanted people to re-use. Regardless, that code is now
> in a released version of Apache JServ (1.1) and again, doesn't result in
any
> issues with Turbine.
>
> As I said before, Turbine will run out of the box in ANY servlet engine
that
> implements JSDK 2.0 and higher on JDK 1.1 and higher. If it doesn't, tell
us
> the problem and we will fix it ASAP.
>
> > Yes, I can see that the Turbine classes have their own org/apache/jserv
> > directory. How does this affect using another servlet engine then with
> > Turbine?
>
> It doesn't.
>
> > Well, I might not know everything, that is fairly evident, but at least
have
> > some tollerance for us idiots ...
>
> Instead of just asking if Turbine did what you wanted, which would have
been
> simple, you started on a <rant> that made totally incorrect statements.
Why
> should I tolerate that type of rudeness?
>
> -jon
>
> --
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
