You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@turbine.apache.org by Peter Brown <pe...@mail.com> on 2004/03/29 04:14:59 UTC
Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
Hello. Please excuse me for asking a question that has been asked a thousand
times before, but I have been unable to find a solid, coherent answer.
I would really like to know why Turbine is better or at least how it is
materially different than WebWorks2, Tapestry, Spring, JPublish or any other
mature application framework. I mean, anyone reading this message obviously
uses Turbine and I would love to hear your thoughts -- what do you like and
what do you dislike? Why should I use Turbine instead of WebWorks2 or
Tapestry? Where there any ways in which Turbine inhibited the development of
your projects?
Additionally, I am curious as to the current state and future direction of
Turbine. For example, I have noticed that clicking on the Turbine 2.4 link
from the Turbine home page produces a 404
(http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine-2.4/index.html). Yet I have read that a
whole series of improvements, such as better Avalon component integration or
a fully removed Torque, will be available only in Turbine 2.4. Is this
project still moving forward? Is it a different codebase than 2.3 as I
understand Turbine 3 was supposed to be, or is it simply an updated 2.3?
Thanks Very Much,
Peter T. Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
Posted by Brian Lawler <br...@tribenetwork.com>.
Hey Peter-
I know that we have exchanged emails on this topic before, but I just
thought that I would chime in again with another advantage of Turbine.
What I like about the way Turbine is set up is that it is more centered
around making the life of the back-end developer easier, and it
provides lots of nice containers and exits for you to customize. There
are 3 in particular that I am a big fan of:
1) The Service framework (I am not on Avalon yet, but the old Services
framework is cool too).
2) The PullTool abstraction.
3) The torque generated beans and bean peers.
It is great to have example pull tools and services available in the
code, as it gives you some great pointers on what a properly
modularized application should look like. Last time I worked with
struts, they were less focused on this back end code layering concept
and more concerned about managing session/request beans and JSP screen
flows. Both are valuable, but I think that proper code layering on the
back end provides more bang for the buck since it results in far more
maintainable code. And best of all, the services framework allows you
to substitute your own application specific extensions which is
absolutely invaluable for high volume sites.
At tribe.net, we have had to re-implement the SecurityService
ourselves, but this is not a big deal since the interface for that
service is well defined, and once implemented the whole app (your code
AND turbine code) will use your new service seamlessly. We have also
jumped in and coded our own "ImageService" used for scaling and
cropping images. This has been kind of a nightmare because no one here
is intimately familiar with the magic juju inside the JAI package. As
a result, we have gone thru a couple iterations of the ImageService,
and it is easy for us to roll them all out to qa and/or production and
switch between them in the TR.props file as necessary to test the
results. Further, if we just give up and decide to farm out the
ImageService, all we need to do is give someone with imaging expertise
the interface file and let him go to town.
I guess the bottom line is that none of the ideas here are new, but the
last thing you want to do is start from zero to implement them.
Admittedly I have not tried all the frameworks out there, but if you
are looking for a criteria for judging webapp frameworks for your
project it may behoove you to include back end abstractions (service
lifecycle management, MVC+1, etc.) among them.
-Brian
On Mar 28, 2004, at 6:14 PM, Peter Brown wrote:
> Hello. Please excuse me for asking a question that has been asked a
> thousand
> times before, but I have been unable to find a solid, coherent answer.
>
> I would really like to know why Turbine is better or at least how it is
> materially different than WebWorks2, Tapestry, Spring, JPublish or any
> other
> mature application framework. I mean, anyone reading this message
> obviously
> uses Turbine and I would love to hear your thoughts -- what do you
> like and
> what do you dislike? Why should I use Turbine instead of WebWorks2 or
> Tapestry? Where there any ways in which Turbine inhibited the
> development of
> your projects?
>
> Additionally, I am curious as to the current state and future
> direction of
> Turbine. For example, I have noticed that clicking on the Turbine 2.4
> link
> from the Turbine home page produces a 404
> (http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine-2.4/index.html). Yet I have read
> that a
> whole series of improvements, such as better Avalon component
> integration or
> a fully removed Torque, will be available only in Turbine 2.4. Is this
> project still moving forward? Is it a different codebase than 2.3 as I
> understand Turbine 3 was supposed to be, or is it simply an updated
> 2.3?
>
>
>
> Thanks Very Much,
>
> Peter T. Brown
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
Posted by Kostyantyn Shchekotykhin <ko...@ifit.uni-klu.ac.at>.
Hi Eric,
This is the "turbine 2.4" link which is on the http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/ page in the "Downloads and Versions"
paragraph.
Regards,
Kostya
Eric Pugh wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Could you send me the link you clicked? Here is the proper link:
> (http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine-2.4/index.html), I'll fix the
> broken one today.
>
> As far as Turbine 3 goes, the best parts of Turbine 3 (namely decoupled
> services in terms of Avalon components, and the pipeline) have been ported
> into Turbine 2.4. So, Turbine 3 can be more thought of as an experiment,
> with the good parts rejoing Turbine 2.x. Other then that, 2.4 is an
> evolutionary upgrade of the work started in 2.3.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter Brown [mailto:peterbrown@mail.com]
>>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:15 AM
>>To: Turbine Users List
>>Subject: Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
>>
>>
>>Hello. Please excuse me for asking a question that has been asked
>>a thousand
>>times before, but I have been unable to find a solid, coherent answer.
>>
>>I would really like to know why Turbine is better or at least how it is
>>materially different than WebWorks2, Tapestry, Spring, JPublish
>>or any other
>>mature application framework. I mean, anyone reading this message
>>obviously
>>uses Turbine and I would love to hear your thoughts -- what do
>>you like and
>>what do you dislike? Why should I use Turbine instead of WebWorks2 or
>>Tapestry? Where there any ways in which Turbine inhibited the
>>development of
>>your projects?
>>
>>Additionally, I am curious as to the current state and future direction of
>>Turbine. For example, I have noticed that clicking on the Turbine 2.4 link
>>from the Turbine home page produces a 404
>>(http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine-2.4/index.html). Yet I have read that a
>>whole series of improvements, such as better Avalon component
>>integration or
>>a fully removed Torque, will be available only in Turbine 2.4. Is this
>>project still moving forward? Is it a different codebase than 2.3 as I
>>understand Turbine 3 was supposed to be, or is it simply an updated 2.3?
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks Very Much,
>>
>>Peter T. Brown
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
Posted by Andreas Ernst <ae...@ae-online.de>.
Hi Eric,
Eric Pugh schrieb:
>Peter,
>
>Could you send me the link you clicked? Here is the proper link:
>(http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine-2.4/index.html), I'll fix the
>broken one today.
>
>
>
I found the broken Link too:
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/
If you click under
Downloads und Versions, Link to 2.3 works, but not the Link to 2.4
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine-2.4/index.html (404 error)
regards
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
Posted by Eric Pugh <ep...@upstate.com>.
Peter,
Could you send me the link you clicked? Here is the proper link:
(http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine-2.4/index.html), I'll fix the
broken one today.
As far as Turbine 3 goes, the best parts of Turbine 3 (namely decoupled
services in terms of Avalon components, and the pipeline) have been ported
into Turbine 2.4. So, Turbine 3 can be more thought of as an experiment,
with the good parts rejoing Turbine 2.x. Other then that, 2.4 is an
evolutionary upgrade of the work started in 2.3.
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Brown [mailto:peterbrown@mail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:15 AM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: Turbine vs. Other Frameworks
>
>
> Hello. Please excuse me for asking a question that has been asked
> a thousand
> times before, but I have been unable to find a solid, coherent answer.
>
> I would really like to know why Turbine is better or at least how it is
> materially different than WebWorks2, Tapestry, Spring, JPublish
> or any other
> mature application framework. I mean, anyone reading this message
> obviously
> uses Turbine and I would love to hear your thoughts -- what do
> you like and
> what do you dislike? Why should I use Turbine instead of WebWorks2 or
> Tapestry? Where there any ways in which Turbine inhibited the
> development of
> your projects?
>
> Additionally, I am curious as to the current state and future direction of
> Turbine. For example, I have noticed that clicking on the Turbine 2.4 link
> from the Turbine home page produces a 404
> (http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine-2.4/index.html). Yet I have read that a
> whole series of improvements, such as better Avalon component
> integration or
> a fully removed Torque, will be available only in Turbine 2.4. Is this
> project still moving forward? Is it a different codebase than 2.3 as I
> understand Turbine 3 was supposed to be, or is it simply an updated 2.3?
>
>
>
> Thanks Very Much,
>
> Peter T. Brown
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org