You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@turbine.apache.org by Kelvin Tan <ke...@relevanz.com> on 2001/12/03 06:53:54 UTC
Status of Fulcrum
What's the current status of the Fulcrum package?
Looking at NOTES in Fulcrum, I understand that Fulcrum is essentially
Turbine-3's service package, extracted from Turbine-3 so it can (eventually)
function as a stand-alone services framework. Is the current Fulcrum
codebase evolving independent of Turbine-3, or is Fulcrum synonomous with
Turbine 3 at this stage?
Thanks
Kelvin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Status of Fulcrum
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Kelvin Tan wrote:
> What's the current status of the Fulcrum package?
>
> Looking at NOTES in Fulcrum, I understand that Fulcrum is essentially
> Turbine-3's service package, extracted from Turbine-3 so it can (eventually)
> function as a stand-alone services framework. Is the current Fulcrum
> codebase evolving independent of Turbine-3, or is Fulcrum synonomous with
> Turbine 3 at this stage?
Fulcrum is used by Turbine 3, and can (for the most part) evolve
independently from it.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Status of Fulcrum
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com>.
On 12/3/01 2:20 AM, "Kelvin Tan" <ke...@relevanz.com> wrote:
> What I actually really like about Fulcrum (or the Turbine services
> framework) is really the design of it, ie interfaces and base
> implementations (basically everything in src/core minus TurbineServices,
> though it serves as an excellent reference implementation). I suppose this
> is what you say hasn't experienced much change since Turbine.
>
> I may be simplifying things, but if I wanted to use this core as a
> stand-alone (plugging in my own implementations), would it be simply looking
> at how Turbine.init() works and basically mimicking the service
> initialization?
Yup. Right now you have to hand it a configuration (Right now an
ExtendedProperties object, this will change to an interface) and it needs
some log4j info. Look in the turbine-3 code for details.
> Sure. Is the eventual goal to produce a stand-alone services framework
> though?
Yes!
> Kelvin
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Status of Fulcrum
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Kelvin Tan wrote:
> What I actually really like about Fulcrum (or the Turbine services
> framework) is really the design of it, ie interfaces and base
> implementations (basically everything in src/core minus TurbineServices,
> though it serves as an excellent reference implementation). I suppose this
> is what you say hasn't experienced much change since Turbine.
>
> I may be simplifying things, but if I wanted to use this core as a
> stand-alone (plugging in my own implementations), would it be simply looking
> at how Turbine.init() works and basically mimicking the service
> initialization?
You're right on target.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Status of Fulcrum
Posted by Kelvin Tan <ke...@relevanz.com>.
[snip]
> > What's the current status of the Fulcrum package?
>
> The services have been changing, most notably Intake and the Localization
> service as these are used by the folks at Collab. But the core hasn't
> changed much since it was decoupled from Turbine.
>
> If you look at what going on with Torque and the testbed you'll see what
> Fulcrum will be like. Fulcrum is a pain in the ass to build, I am trying
to
> remedy that as we speak with the graph package in the commons, some jjar
> code and the project descriptors in alexandria (gump proposal).
>
> > Looking at NOTES in Fulcrum, I understand that Fulcrum is essentially
> > Turbine-3's service package, extracted from Turbine-3 so it can
(eventually)
> > function as a stand-alone services framework.
>
> It will work by itself if you know what you're doing but it's not meant to
> be used by itself. It can work alone but it really only workable solution
> right now is having turbine-3 start it up.
What I actually really like about Fulcrum (or the Turbine services
framework) is really the design of it, ie interfaces and base
implementations (basically everything in src/core minus TurbineServices,
though it serves as an excellent reference implementation). I suppose this
is what you say hasn't experienced much change since Turbine.
I may be simplifying things, but if I wanted to use this core as a
stand-alone (plugging in my own implementations), would it be simply looking
at how Turbine.init() works and basically mimicking the service
initialization?
>
> > Is the current Fulcrum
> > codebase evolving independent of Turbine-3, or is Fulcrum synonomous
with
> > Turbine 3 at this stage?
>
> It is evolving separately. There's might be a spot or two that have been
> missed but it has been decoupled from Turbine though some of the code
still
> have "Turbine" in the name as not to break services in applications like
> Scarab that are using turbine-3
Sure. Is the eventual goal to produce a stand-alone services framework
though?
Kelvin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Status of Fulcrum
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com>.
On 12/3/01 12:53 AM, "Kelvin Tan" <ke...@relevanz.com> wrote:
> What's the current status of the Fulcrum package?
The services have been changing, most notably Intake and the Localization
service as these are used by the folks at Collab. But the core hasn't
changed much since it was decoupled from Turbine.
If you look at what going on with Torque and the testbed you'll see what
Fulcrum will be like. Fulcrum is a pain in the ass to build, I am trying to
remedy that as we speak with the graph package in the commons, some jjar
code and the project descriptors in alexandria (gump proposal).
> Looking at NOTES in Fulcrum, I understand that Fulcrum is essentially
> Turbine-3's service package, extracted from Turbine-3 so it can (eventually)
> function as a stand-alone services framework.
It will work by itself if you know what you're doing but it's not meant to
be used by itself. It can work alone but it really only workable solution
right now is having turbine-3 start it up.
> Is the current Fulcrum
> codebase evolving independent of Turbine-3, or is Fulcrum synonomous with
> Turbine 3 at this stage?
It is evolving separately. There's might be a spot or two that have been
missed but it has been decoupled from Turbine though some of the code still
have "Turbine" in the name as not to break services in applications like
Scarab that are using turbine-3
> Thanks
>
> Kelvin
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>