On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Weaver, Scott wrote: > > Presumably it will be replaced with the JSR168 MVC model. > > Yes. > > > (_Implementations_ may still lean on turbine, I dunno about that, but > > the spec has a pretty lean and tidy interface.) > > > > There currently is no movement to use turbine within Jetspeed 2 as a > default of any kind. We are using Fulcrum for services, however, > David is abstracting access into Fulcrum services through a thin > access layer so we can swap fulcrum out for something else in future > if we need to.
Well, having gone down the route of hiding all the turbine stuff in JS1.4 behind thin non-turbine-specific abstractions*, I have to say this is a good thing. Don't wish to knock turbine, but jetspeed was very tightly coupled to it and it made portlet-writing more painful (particularly for newcomers) than it needed to be. jan * actually what's left looks very much like jsr168. Go figure. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ "My army boots contain everything not in them." - Russell's pair o' Docs. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
