Re: Doc to promote turbine

[Peter Courcoux <pe...@courcoux.biz>]

Hi Thomas,

Personally I think t 2.4 is the better way to go. The pipeline is more
flexible and moving services from the main turbine source tree to
fulcrum is a step forward.

If you decide to go this route I will try to help answer any queries on
the mailing list. It is a long time since I made that transition, and I
really cannot remember how much of a problem it was, so I guess that it
couldn't have been too painful.

Regards,

Peter


On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 23:45 +0100, Thomas UNG wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> >From the beginning, I thought that 2.3.2 was the stable version, the
> version starting a project based on a release version of the Turbine
> framework ?
> 
> Now that I am pretty familiar with 2.3.2, do you thing that I should go
> to 2.4M1, is this stable and easy to migrate?
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Thomas
> 
>     * Turbine 2.3.2 is the version you should use when either migrating
> from an older version of Turbine or starting a project based on a
> release version of the Turbine framework.
>     * Turbine 2.4 is the shape of things to come. Turbine 2.4 is using
> next generation technologies like an Avalon-based container and
> decoupled components from the Fulcrum sister project of Turbine. If you
> don't mind building your own jars from the Subversion tree and can
> tolerate the occasional change while developing on the framework, you
> should use this version of Turbine.
> 
> 
> Peter Courcoux a écrit :
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > I'm still using t 2.4 extensively and without any burning need to patch
> > it :-)
> > 
> > I would still like to find the time to fix the Avalon stuff, but it is
> > working for me at present and I still have two concurrent projects I am
> > working on (both based on t2.4) and which are taking all my time.
> > 
> > I have written an alternative page layout framework to replace the
> > scripting approach used by the velocity service. I am using this for one
> > of my projects and experimenting with a couple of different approaches.
> > When I am further along this could be a future fulcrum component.
> > 
> > As far as I am concerned Turbine 2.4 continues to be the framework of
> > choice.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 11:51 +0100, Thomas UNG wrote:
> >> Hi Henning, Thomas and Peter,
> >>
> >> In recent conversation in the turbine user mailing list, we've talked
> >> about documentation and in particular doc for migrating 2.3 to 2.4. Some
> >> folks and I would like to have more info on this because we all
> >> appreciate the framework. I saw in JIRA that you are assigned to some
> >> issues, that is the reason why I write to you guys directly and I think
> >> that you know beter that anyone else.
> >>
> >> Here are the questions:
> >>
> >> - Is 2.4 in scope? Can you communicate any schedule/milestones? If we
> >> have a clear view on this, some people in this mailing list (me in
> >> particular) could help.
> >>
> >> - What are scheduled for 2.4? Where are we? 2.4M1, M2?
> >> Is the M1 list accurate?
> >> http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.4-M1/changes-report.html
> >> Is there any other items?
> >>
> >> - In the jira issue tracker, how can we identify issues related to 2.4?
> >> I can see only these components: Core, Fulcrum, META, Site and Turbine 2.3.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for your answers,
> >> Best regards,
> >> Thomas UNG
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
-- 
--------------------
Peter Courcoux
Mobile: 07880 605626
--------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: Doc to promote turbine

[Peter Courcoux <pe...@courcoux.biz>]

Hi Thomas,

I am currently actively working with two turbine projects. One, uses
velocity for rendering and the only fulcrum services we use are the
security service with a lot of custom extensions and the Global Cache
Service. This is a large application with over 150 separate services,
and most are specific to the application.

For the other application I have thrown out Velocity and its associated
services. I use basically the pipeline (with custom valves), and a pure
java page layout component based on an xml document object. The
reasoning behind this is that I wanted to move to a purely xhtml 1.0
strict dtd for layouts and decided that any form of scripting was
inappropriate, far better to use an xml document object model, with a
library of xhtml 1.0 compliant tags. So far this has proved very
successful. I hope to propose this for addition to fulcrum in due
course. The result of this is that I am not using any of the fulcrum
services, and need to retain the velocity classes only until I get round
to making the error handler in Turbine.java pluggable. However, the fact
that I have been able to do this shows how good turbine is as a
framework when you need to develop custom processing models.

You will understand from this that I would love to see all the turbine
services migrated to fulcrum, leaving turbine itself as a much slimmed
down framework, with the ability to use the fulcrum components together
with components based on other component models.

For the last couple of years I have been thinking that when my next
contract runs out, I may have a couple of weeks to tidy things up. But
it never seems to work out like that :-)

I'm sorry that I cannot help by answering your question more fully.

Regards,

Peter




On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 20:38 +0100, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Peter Courcoux wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > Personally I think t 2.4 is the better way to go. The pipeline is more
> > flexible and moving services from the main turbine source tree to
> > fulcrum is a step forward.
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> as you use Turbine 2.4M1 in projects, I'm interested in your experiences
> with the Fulcrum components. IMO some of them are not at the same level
> of functionality and quality as their Turbine 2.3 counterparts. What do
> you think? Which of them do you use? What components are missing?
> 
> Bye, Thomas.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
-- 
--------------------
Peter Courcoux
Mobile: 07880 605626
--------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: Doc to promote turbine

[Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>]

Peter Courcoux wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Personally I think t 2.4 is the better way to go. The pipeline is more
> flexible and moving services from the main turbine source tree to
> fulcrum is a step forward.

Hi Peter,

as you use Turbine 2.4M1 in projects, I'm interested in your experiences
with the Fulcrum components. IMO some of them are not at the same level
of functionality and quality as their Turbine 2.3 counterparts. What do
you think? Which of them do you use? What components are missing?

Bye, Thomas.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org