You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> on 2002/07/09 18:54:19 UTC
[vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
status:
2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security service.
2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
plan:
*) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the coupled version
+ the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled version
+ the coupled version is unmaintained
+ it will be easier to change to turbine-3
- this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
<quote>
FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour total, so,
for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
-jon
</quote> :-))
*) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
- it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
-
*) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
*) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
(or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
martin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by James Taylor <jt...@4lane.com>.
I'm not a turbine 2 user, so... grain of salt and all that:
I like the idea of moving to decoupled torque but not fulcrum, since
torque is not going anywhere while fulcrum is likely to disappear (in
its current form) as we move to Avalon for turbine 3.
-- jt
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 12:54, Martin Poeschl wrote:
> Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
> I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>
> status:
>
> 2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security service.
> 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
>
> plan:
>
> *) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the coupled version
> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled version
> + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
>
> <quote>
>
> FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour total, so,
> for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
>
> -jon
>
> </quote> :-))
>
>
> *) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
> -
>
> *) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
>
> *) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
> (or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
>
> i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
>
> martin
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Rodney Schneider <rl...@arcalink.com>.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:54, you wrote:
> Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
> I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
+1
> status:
>
> 2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security
> service. 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums
> xml-rpc service)
Here is a quote from a post by Brian Lawler:
"There are a few key classes in the gray area between Torque and Turbine.
Most notably, DBConnection, Criteria, and StringKey (these are the ones I
have run into so far) that exist in both modules. The existing Turbine
API's use the Turbine versions of the crossover classes."
http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg07559.html
Just for interest sake, have these issues been addressed in 2.2-dev yet?
> plan:
>
> *) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the
> coupled version + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in
> the decoupled version + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector ->
> List)
So, is the idea to remove the coupled version of Torque completely? I guess
that would be one quick way of finding out all the classes in the Turbine API
that rely on the old Torque... just recompile and see how many errors show
up :)
> *) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
I think that is the best decision. Services like the Upload Service et. al.
are still reliant on the Turbine 2.x RunData interface, so I can imagine it
would be difficult to make these a part of Fulcrum and have them work with
both Turbine 2.x and Turbine 3.x.
Thanks for all your hard work and good luck!
-- Rodney
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 12:54, Martin Poeschl wrote:
> Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
> I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
+1
If you can get it out the door go for it. Primarily I think
compatibility is the biggest issue. Using the decouple services would be
nice but just getting a release out with the bug fixes I'm sure would be
appreciated. Go for it Martin.
> status:
>
> 2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security service.
> 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
>
> plan:
>
> *) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the coupled version
> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled version
> + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
>
> <quote>
>
> FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour total, so,
> for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
>
> -jon
>
> </quote> :-))
>
>
> *) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
> -
>
> *) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
>
> *) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
> (or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
>
> i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
>
> martin
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> writes:
>> What do you mean with "Vector -> List"? Is this already in the
>> Security Service?
>the decoupled torque uses List instead of Vector (e.g. BasePeer.doSelect() ), so people using the
>coupled version will have to change this in their code too
Ah. I didn't notice, because our inhouse T2 has this since
ages. Thanks for clarification.
>> BTW: I see no reason why the releases of T2 and T3 must be at the same
>> time. Especially when people will immediately start asking "why T2.2
>> when there is T3.0".
>??? where did you get this information??
>we need a Torque release as it is used for Turbine 2.2 ..
Whoops, I was too quick reading your first mail. I read "Torque-3.0 as
Turbine-3.0. My bad, sorry.
It still wouldn't be bad to get at least a beta Fulcrum release so we
can point Turbine Users to "Use Turbine 2.2 release, Torque 3.0
release and at least Fulcrum-3.0 beta 1". At the moment we tell them
"get it from CVS and good luck. :-) )
+1 for your release schedule.
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: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>.
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> writes:
>
>
>>Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
>>I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>
>
>>status:
>
>
>>2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security service.
>>2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
>
>
>>plan:
>
>
>>*) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the coupled version
>> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled version
>> + the coupled version is unmaintained
>> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
>> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
>
>
> Can you explain what you mean with this? I have a somewhat largeish
> patch for T2, now Fulcrum in use, that replaces most of the methods
> returning Arrays (User [], Group []) with Lists (DBUserManager.retrieve()
> , getUsers(), getGroups in SecurityService etc.). I'd say, that you
> mean something different.
>
> What do you mean with "Vector -> List"? Is this already in the
> Security Service?
the decoupled torque uses List instead of Vector (e.g. BasePeer.doSelect() ), so people using the
coupled version will have to change this in their code too
>
>
>>*) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
>> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
>
>
> actually, I'm in favor of that for 2.2 and then putting 2.3 some
> four-six weeks after this with all the incompatible changes in
> place. Even without the deeper (incompatible) changes, the jump from
> 2.1 to 2.2 is huge. And we could use proper deprecation.
>
>
>>*) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
>
>
> +1 for that. No matter what the release itself will be. Getting
> another beta out will be a huge step forward.
>
> Things to resolve for me:
>
> We still do have WebMacro, FreeMarker, Velocity Service. You can't
> simple replace them with "TemplateService". Not without breaking our
> own "proper deprecation rules". And as I told you, some of the T2
> services can't simply be replaced.
2.2 will use the coupled services as they are ... so i'll look at this after the release ;-)
>
> BTW: I see no reason why the releases of T2 and T3 must be at the same
> time. Especially when people will immediately start asking "why T2.2
> when there is T3.0".
??? where did you get this information??
we need a Torque release as it is used for Turbine 2.2 ..
>
> So why not put T3 a little on the back burner and release a T2. There
> is much work to do after a release (whip the TDK in shape, mavenify it
> (I promised you my patches, I will send them out later tonight).
>
> I have two more patches for Fulcrum-Security; the large one in the
> proposal section and a small one which replaces the hard coded
> MessageDigest stuff in BaseSecurityService stuff with the crypto
> service. I just wanted to clear up the obvious padding issue with MD5
> (unfortunately someone told me, that he wants to look into it but I
> got no feedback. So I will do this myself later this week). There
> would be a small change to the SecurityService interface, too so I
> want to get this in before a Fulcrum release.
i'm not sure if we need a fulcrum release now ... maybe yes, because some fulcrum services could be
used with turbine 2.2 and some people already use them
>
> I'd love to get rid of the Array returning functions in Security
> Service, too, but we can easily deprecate these and replace with List
> functions over time. No need to hurry here.
>
> And, folks, we really put a little pressure on naming conventions for
> some of the jars that we use. The "suddently disappearing classes" in
> commons-lang were very annoying. :-)
>
> Regards
> Henning
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at> writes:
>Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
>I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>status:
>2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security service.
>2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
>plan:
>*) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the coupled version
> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled version
> + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
Can you explain what you mean with this? I have a somewhat largeish
patch for T2, now Fulcrum in use, that replaces most of the methods
returning Arrays (User [], Group []) with Lists (DBUserManager.retrieve()
, getUsers(), getGroups in SecurityService etc.). I'd say, that you
mean something different.
What do you mean with "Vector -> List"? Is this already in the
Security Service?
>*) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
actually, I'm in favor of that for 2.2 and then putting 2.3 some
four-six weeks after this with all the incompatible changes in
place. Even without the deeper (incompatible) changes, the jump from
2.1 to 2.2 is huge. And we could use proper deprecation.
>*) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
+1 for that. No matter what the release itself will be. Getting
another beta out will be a huge step forward.
Things to resolve for me:
We still do have WebMacro, FreeMarker, Velocity Service. You can't
simple replace them with "TemplateService". Not without breaking our
own "proper deprecation rules". And as I told you, some of the T2
services can't simply be replaced.
BTW: I see no reason why the releases of T2 and T3 must be at the same
time. Especially when people will immediately start asking "why T2.2
when there is T3.0".
So why not put T3 a little on the back burner and release a T2. There
is much work to do after a release (whip the TDK in shape, mavenify it
(I promised you my patches, I will send them out later tonight).
I have two more patches for Fulcrum-Security; the large one in the
proposal section and a small one which replaces the hard coded
MessageDigest stuff in BaseSecurityService stuff with the crypto
service. I just wanted to clear up the obvious padding issue with MD5
(unfortunately someone told me, that he wants to look into it but I
got no feedback. So I will do this myself later this week). There
would be a small change to the SecurityService interface, too so I
want to get this in before a Fulcrum release.
I'd love to get rid of the Array returning functions in Security
Service, too, but we can easily deprecate these and replace with List
functions over time. No need to hurry here.
And, folks, we really put a little pressure on naming conventions for
some of the jars that we use. The "suddently disappearing classes" in
commons-lang were very annoying. :-)
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: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>.
Rodney Schneider wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:54, you wrote:
>
>
>>Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
>>I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>
>
> +1
>
>
>>status:
>>
>>2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security
>>service. 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums
>>xml-rpc service)
>
>
> Here is a quote from a post by Brian Lawler:
>
> "There are a few key classes in the gray area between Torque and Turbine.
> Most notably, DBConnection, Criteria, and StringKey (these are the ones I
> have run into so far) that exist in both modules. The existing Turbine
> API's use the Turbine versions of the crossover classes."
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg07559.html
>
> Just for interest sake, have these issues been addressed in 2.2-dev yet?
the db service will be deprecated.
it will be a facade for torque (i'll try to keep it as compatible as possible)
the security service will use the decoupled torque
this stuff is still todo, but i will be done before the next beta on friday ;-)
>
>
>>plan:
>>
>>*) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the
>>coupled version + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in
>>the decoupled version + the coupled version is unmaintained
>> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
>> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector ->
>> List)
>
>
> So, is the idea to remove the coupled version of Torque completely? I guess
> that would be one quick way of finding out all the classes in the Turbine API
> that rely on the old Torque... just recompile and see how many errors show
> up :)
that's the plan ...
>
>
>>*) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
>> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
>
>
> I think that is the best decision. Services like the Upload Service et. al.
> are still reliant on the Turbine 2.x RunData interface, so I can imagine it
> would be difficult to make these a part of Fulcrum and have them work with
> both Turbine 2.x and Turbine 3.x.
right.
i think the service stuff in turbine 2 is in good shape, while the coupled torque is unmaintained
and the decoupled version includes tons of bugfixes .. that's why we will use the decoupled torque
but keep the old services
martin
>
> Thanks for all your hard work and good luck!
>
> -- Rodney
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Ben Hogan <be...@lizardsoftware.com>.
+1
From: "Age Mooy" <am...@home.nl>
> Plus can someone go through the backlog of patches that were sent to the
list ? I sent one or two during the
> last three weeks and never heard from them again :(
did Bill's torque oracle dates patch end up in getting applied?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Age Mooy <am...@home.nl>.
+1 with decoupled torque and fixed security service.
Plus can someone go through the backlog of patches that were sent to the list ? I sent one or two during the
last three weeks and never heard from them again :(
Age
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Poeschl [mailto:mpoeschl@marmot.at]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 18:54
> To: Turbine Developers List; turbine-user
> Subject: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
>
>
> Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
> I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>
> status:
>
> 2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security service.
> 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
>
> plan:
>
> *) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the coupled version
> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled version
> + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
>
> <quote>
>
> FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour total, so,
> for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
>
> -jon
>
> </quote> :-))
>
>
> *) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
> -
>
> *) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
>
> *) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
> (or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
>
> i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
>
> martin
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>.
David Wynter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am also +1 for the full decoupling of services including security with
> decoupled Torque. I have avoided migration for my app having seen the sheer
> volume of questions on this 'problem' on the mailing list.
2.2 will use the coupled services (NOT fulcrum) .. we can switch to fulcrum for 2.3 (maybe ;-)
>
> I think Turbine User list consumers (being capable techno types) would
> appreciate this:-
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/neilgibbo/work.swf
:-)))
martin
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Poeschl [mailto:mpoeschl@marmot.at]
> Sent: 09 July 2002 17:54
> To: Turbine Developers List; turbine-user
> Subject: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
>
>
> Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
> I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>
> status:
>
> 2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security
> service.
> 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc
> service)
>
> plan:
>
> *) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the
> coupled version
> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled
> version
> + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector ->
> List)
>
> <quote>
>
> FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour
> total, so,
> for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
>
> -jon
>
> </quote> :-))
>
>
> *) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
> -
>
> *) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
>
> *) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
> (or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
>
> i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
>
> martin
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by David Wynter <da...@btclick.com>.
Hi,
I am also +1 for the full decoupling of services including security with
decoupled Torque. I have avoided migration for my app having seen the sheer
volume of questions on this 'problem' on the mailing list.
I think Turbine User list consumers (being capable techno types) would
appreciate this:-
http://members.lycos.co.uk/neilgibbo/work.swf
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Poeschl [mailto:mpoeschl@marmot.at]
Sent: 09 July 2002 17:54
To: Turbine Developers List; turbine-user
Subject: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
status:
2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security
service.
2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc
service)
plan:
*) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the
coupled version
+ the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled
version
+ the coupled version is unmaintained
+ it will be easier to change to turbine-3
- this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector ->
List)
<quote>
FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour
total, so,
for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
-jon
</quote> :-))
*) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
- it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
-
*) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
*) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
(or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
martin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by po...@maikschulz.de.
Yes, please. It would be so much easier if I could use the decoupled
Torque...
Thanks,
-Maik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
Posted by Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au>.
+1
I too have been staying back on 2.1 because of the issues relating to the
security service.
Scott
> From: Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>
> Reply-To: "Turbine Developers List" <tu...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:54:19 +0200
> To: Turbine Developers List <tu...@jakarta.apache.org>, turbine-user
> <tu...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: [vote] Turbine 2.2 release
>
> Turbine 2.1 was released more than a year ago.
> I think it's time for 2.2 ;-)
>
> status:
>
> 2.2-dev works with the decoupled version of torque except for the security
> service.
> 2.2-dev works with some parts of fulcrum (i'm using fulcrums xml-rpc service)
>
> plan:
>
> *) change the security service to use the decoupled torque and remove the
> coupled version
> + the coupled version has some problems which are fixed in the coupled
> version
> + the coupled version is unmaintained
> + it will be easier to change to turbine-3
> - this will brake backwards compatibility!! (package names, Vector -> List)
>
> <quote>
>
> FYI, the List->Vector change in Scarab only took me about an hour total,
> so,
> for those of you waiting, it won't be that bad of an upgrade.
>
> -jon
>
> </quote> :-))
>
>
> *) leave the services as they are (at least for turbine 2.2)
> - it would be hard to make turbine 2.2 work with fulcrum
> -
>
> *) release Torque 3.0-b3 and Turbine 2.2-b2 by the end of the week
>
> *) release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 2 weeks later (26th july)
> (or Torque b4 and turbine b3 .. depends on feedback)
>
> i x-post this mail to get additional feedback from the user list :-)
>
> martin
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>