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

[Eric Dobbs <er...@dobbse.net>]

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>