You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com> on 2002/07/08 11:05:31 UTC
The Road to Turbine 3.0
Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> writes:
> i'm not sure what the timeframe for a 3.0 release is .. there are some
> users who don't want to use any packages marked as alpha or beta .. i
> think we must shorten our release cycles!!
I am willing to help out with a real beta release of 3.0, based on
either Fulcrum or an Avalon container. Is there a Turbine 3.0 TODO
list enumerating the minimal requirements for such a release
milestone? If not, is there any preference for where I should put it
in the jakarta-turbine-3 CVS repository?
An important part of any release is well organized documentation.
Previous releases of Turbine contained quite a bit of documentation,
but these hidden jewels were sequestered in the far recesses of the
jungle which was the Turbine 2.x web site, accessible only to those
with native guide and elephant, or to those brave souls stout enough
of heart to wade through the piranha infested waters of the source.
Maven's XML descriptor and sharp DVSL machete promises to bring order
to our chaotic jungle, tempting us with a slick hierarchical layout.
But alas, its shaky rope bridge of stability has washed away every
time I've returned to ford the river of a build. The tease of web
site coherency is frustrating, to say the least. A stable build
system is without a doubt a Turbine release prerequisite. Seeing as
how Maven originally emerged from the Turbine jungle to statisfy
Turbine requirements, what are the chances that beta 5 approximates
release candidate quality, satisfying this most basic of requirements?
If this is an unrealistic expectation, is there any expected time
frame for a Jelly-based release candidate of Maven? If so, how does
this schedule compare with the T3 TODO list?
- Dan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: The Road to Turbine 3.0
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de> writes:
> There are people (e.g. me :-) ) actually working on the Fulcrum HEAD
> branch and it is really annoying to come into the office in the
> morning to find out that I have to upgrade three more tools just to
> keep working where I left off in the evening.
I feel that.
...
> People, please. Can we get some 1.0 releases? Like Geir does with
> Velocity? There are actually release versions. :-) I'd love to see a
> Maven 1.0. A Torque 3.0. A Fulcrum 3.0. Something without "-dev" or
> "-snap" in the jar names.
+1, I'm with you.
- Dan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: The Road to Turbine 3.0
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>Not unrealistic. I've basically been working on Maven and Turbine in
>tandem because I don't even want to attempt anything with Turbine until
>Maven is working. b5 is working now, I would like to move the
>descriptors forward because I always use Turbine as a guinea pig. I know
>that for most projects it's not a good idea to use CVS HEAD but again I
>would like to use Turbine as a test.
Please do not use Turbine-2 / Fulcrum / Torque as "guinea pigs". At
least not until there is no longer talk on the maven list about
"features gone from b5 that were present in b4" (war task comes to
mind). Or even better, let's get a maven release. (Scary thought).
There are people (e.g. me :-) ) actually working on the Fulcrum HEAD
branch and it is really annoying to come into the office in the
morning to find out that I have to upgrade three more tools just to
keep working where I left off in the evening.
I have a _completely_ revamped DB Security Service ready to go in. It
has > 1000 lines of documentation (!), allows free selection of peer,
OM and base classes, can make coffee and the world a cleaner, shinier
place. (Martin and Stephen Habermann already got a copy and I will
file a proposal later). I hate to rewrite it all three days because a
new version of maven comes out. :-(
People, please. Can we get some 1.0 releases? Like Geir does with
Velocity? There are actually release versions. :-) I'd love to see a
Maven 1.0. A Torque 3.0. A Fulcrum 3.0. Something without "-dev" or
"-snap" in the jar names.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: The Road to Turbine 3.0
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 05:05, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> writes:
>>
>> > i'm not sure what the timeframe for a 3.0 release is .. there are some
>> > users who don't want to use any packages marked as alpha or beta .. i
>> > think we must shorten our release cycles!!
>>
>> I am willing to help out with a real beta release of 3.0, based on
>> either Fulcrum or an Avalon container.
>
> I definitely think the Avalon container is the way to go. There are two
> containers here:
>
> http://tambora.zenplex.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/plexus/
>
> One based on Fortress and one based on Tweety.
The one (which I assume is) based on Fortress looks copacetic.
>> Is there a Turbine 3.0 TODO
>> list enumerating the minimal requirements for such a release
>> milestone?
>
> A standardized requirements document would be good.
Yes. I'm willing to work on this if you'll toss in a few
requirements. I'd like to hear from the rest of you on this as well.
>> If not, is there any preference for where I should put it
>> in the jakarta-turbine-3 CVS repository?
>
> I think that's as good a place as any.
Okay. But where within the repo? At the root level, or as an xdoc?
...
> Dan, I know you are used to working with HEAD so at least this way we
> could organize something.
>
> As far as Turbine, there is the plexus container and a little bundle of
> what I would like to see for Turbine 3.0:
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/~jvanzyl/t3-jvz.tgz
I'll try to find time to look, but I'd prefer an english description.
:)
> It is entirely stripped down (~30k) and I know that what is currently in
> t3 is important for the apps you're involved with. What currently
> exists for t3 is still really t2 cleaned and still doesn't satisfy the
> requirement of full decoupling or ease of use.
Will you describe how you can strip further T3 and maintain backwards
compatibility? I haven't looked through the tarball yet and am sure
there are answers in there, but am hoping to get some requirements out
of your description.
>> If so, how does this schedule compare with the T3 TODO list?
>
> I think the first requirement is to get the build and documentation
> system together. Of course, as per usual this has taken longer than
> expected but the Jelly'ized version of Maven is working now. And
> with heavy weights like Bob McWhirter and James Strachan working on
> Maven now it won't take long.
Indeed. I'll kibitz with you on IRC about this.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: The Road to Turbine 3.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 05:05, Daniel Rall wrote:
> Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> writes:
>
> > i'm not sure what the timeframe for a 3.0 release is .. there are some
> > users who don't want to use any packages marked as alpha or beta .. i
> > think we must shorten our release cycles!!
>
> I am willing to help out with a real beta release of 3.0, based on
> either Fulcrum or an Avalon container.
I definitely think the Avalon container is the way to go. There are two
containers here:
http://tambora.zenplex.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/plexus/
One based on Fortress and one based on Tweety.
> Is there a Turbine 3.0 TODO
> list enumerating the minimal requirements for such a release
> milestone?
A standardized requirements document would be good.
> If not, is there any preference for where I should put it
> in the jakarta-turbine-3 CVS repository?
I think that's as good a place as any.
> An important part of any release is well organized documentation.
> Previous releases of Turbine contained quite a bit of documentation,
> but these hidden jewels were sequestered in the far recesses of the
> jungle which was the Turbine 2.x web site, accessible only to those
> with native guide and elephant, or to those brave souls stout enough
> of heart to wade through the piranha infested waters of the source.
>
> Maven's XML descriptor and sharp DVSL machete promises to bring order
> to our chaotic jungle, tempting us with a slick hierarchical layout.
> But alas, its shaky rope bridge of stability has washed away every
> time I've returned to ford the river of a build. The tease of web
> site coherency is frustrating, to say the least. A stable build
> system is without a doubt a Turbine release prerequisite. Seeing as
> how Maven originally emerged from the Turbine jungle to statisfy
> Turbine requirements, what are the chances that beta 5 approximates
> release candidate quality, satisfying this most basic of requirements?
In about a week. We've made the switch completely over to using Jelly.
I've made two passes at the plugins, cleaning them up and this week
there are about 4 of us working on it. Right now it is primarily a
matter of documentation and sorting out the plugin structure as I would
like b5 to be close to what is released for 1.0.
> If this is an unrealistic expectation, is there any expected time
> frame for a Jelly-based release candidate of Maven?
Not unrealistic. I've basically been working on Maven and Turbine in
tandem because I don't even want to attempt anything with Turbine until
Maven is working. b5 is working now, I would like to move the
descriptors forward because I always use Turbine as a guinea pig. I know
that for most projects it's not a good idea to use CVS HEAD but again I
would like to use Turbine as a test.
Dan, I know you are used to working with HEAD so at least this way we
could organize something.
As far as Turbine, there is the plexus container and a little bundle of
what I would like to see for Turbine 3.0:
http://jakarta.apache.org/~jvanzyl/t3-jvz.tgz
It is entirely stripped down (~30k) and I know that what is currently in
t3 is important for the apps you're involved with. What currently
exists for t3 is still really t2 cleaned and still doesn't satisfy the
requirement of full decoupling or ease of use.
> If so, how does
> this schedule compare with the T3 TODO list?
I think the first requirement is to get the build and documentation
system together. Of course, as per usual this has taken longer than
expected but the Jelly'ized version of Maven is working now. And with
heavy weights like Bob McWhirter and James Strachan working on Maven now
it won't take long.
>
> - Dan
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@apache.org
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>