RE: Which to choose: Turbine 2.1, 2.2 or 3.0 (was re: ant init er ror messages)

["Weaver, Scott" <Sw...@rippe.com>]

I've been using 2.2 for quite some time now and it is (seems???) very
stable, save for the lack of compatibility between the decoupled Torque /
Fulcrum and Turbine Security (as Eric mentioned below).  

The solution to the Torque/Fulcrum incompt. is quite simple. All that you
need to do to successfully us T2.2 and Turbine security continue to work is
to use the coupled versions of Torque and Fulcrum which are still fully
supported in T2.2.

This may be harder to accomplish if you are using the TDK.  I do not use the
TDK anymore so I can't comment on it on way or the other.

Scott




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dobbs [mailto:eric@dobbse.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:17 PM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: Which to choose: Turbine 2.1, 2.2 or 3.0 (was re: ant init
> error messages)
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 11:56  AM, Eric Pugh wrote:
> 
> > Hom many issues has Scarab had with running on T3..  I am 
> beta testing
> > Scarab, and it seems pretty solid..  Why would I want to go 
> to 2.2 with 
> > all
> > the security/user issues, versus just going to T3?
> 
> I see this as a simple question of risk.  Turbine 3
> is solid code, but it hasn't been released yet so
> the deprecation rules don't apply.  If you don't
> mind fixing things as the API evolves, then go for
> it.
> 
> If you prefer a conservative approach, 2.1 has the
> most functionality that also has a stable API.  It's
> the safest bet.  It's regrettably dated, but
> nevertheless the best conservative choice.
> 
> In between there is 2.2 which is partly intended to
> ease the migration to 3.0.  It is backward compatible
> with 2.1 in accordance with the deprecation rules.  And
> it will also provide access to the decoupled Torque and
> Fulcrum.   But as you already know 2.2 still has some
> rough edges in the coupling to the old torque and
> fulcrum for security and upload (and maybe other areas
> as well).
> 
> So at the moment the backward compatibility is there in
> 2.2, but the use of decoupled Torque and Fulcrum has
> some sticking points which no one has taken the time to
> work out yet.  It's likely that I will get to this
> eventually unless Martin or Jason beat me to it.  But
> if you don't want to wait for my (or Martin's or
> Jason's) schedule, patches would be quite welcome.  8^)
> 
> I would selfishly recommend the 2.2 release.  As soon
> as one person (maybe you 8^) chooses to fix the
> security and upload coupling in 2.2, then a lot of the
> confusion around these different versions would be
> reduced substantially.
> 
> -Eric
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>