About a year ago, we were developing a JMX Service framework on top of Turbine 2 in about the same way as is now planned to make an Avalon Service framework. However, as the then new Turbine 3 seemed to displace version 2, provided much better template processing architecture with pipelines, but had too long release schedule for our projects, we decided to decouple the code we needed from Turbine 2, apply the Servlet API FilterChain for template pipelines and implement everything as JMX MBeans that we knew well. Our projects were related to wireless internet and network management and included full i18n support, which caused additional requirements not covered by Turbine. Plans included integrating the work back to Turbine some day in future.
Now the projects are ready, new ones have been started, the framework is published as open source (http://tammi.sourceforge.net), but the integration to Turbine is not so easy as development of version 3 has been slower than expected and version 2 is not compatible with the new architecture. > 1. Are you busy elsewhere? If so, will you continue contributing to Turbine? At the moment, my time goes to Tammi and projects built on it. > 2. Have you moved on (ie: permanently left the Turbine community)? No, but I'm mainly interested in post 2.x solutions (Avalon Components, JMX MBeans, Servlet API chains, OJB Services, etc.) > 3. Will you resurface soon with an alternative to Turbine? See above. > 4. Will you help maintain Turbine 2.x in the future? It depends on what is included in x. -- Ilkka Ilkka Priha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rodney Schneider wrote: > Hi all, > > I just found these IRC logs yesterday and what I read explained a lot about > what has been going on in the Turbine community: > http://irc.werken.com/channels/turbine/ > > Essentially... Jason, Jon, John, Daniel, Eric, Henning et. al. seem to have > different, possibly irreconcilable opinions about the future of Turbine, so > some of you seem to be pissed off, disillusioned and confused about what to > do. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > These three threads; "How Avalon might change Turbine", "Turbine 3 direction" > and "Turbine Road Map" also explained things: > >http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/BrowseList?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=210342 > >http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/BrowseList?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&from=208709&to=208709&count=42&by=thread&paged=false > >http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/BrowseList?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=210179 > > I missed all of these discussions on turbine-dev as I was busy working on my > application and I wasn't subscribed to this list at the time. > > It would be really helpful if each of the main Turbine committers could write > a short email to this list outlining their current position with respect to > contributing to Turbine. I don't want to start a flame war or even start a > discussion about the future of Turbine. There are many talented developers > using Turbine, and at least some would contribute if they knew what was going > on. So, if you are a Turbine committer, please consider stating your > position. Here's a starting point: > 1. Are you busy elsewhere? If so, will you continue contributing to Turbine? > 2. Have you moved on (ie: permanently left the Turbine community)? > 3. Will you resurface soon with an alternative to Turbine? > 4. Will you help maintain Turbine 2.x in the future? > > Anyway, after thinking about all this, I have decided that after I migrate my > application to TDK-2.2b3 (I've been a bit distracted the last couple of days) > and write the migration howto, I am going to work on the coupled > SecurityService rather than Henning's DBSecurityService proposal or the > current Fulcrum SecurityService as I am not overly confident that Fulcrum > will be around for very long after Jason has finished Plexus. > > I figure that if I can get the coupled T2.2 services into a decent working > state, it won't matter what you guys decide to do with Fulcrum. Then, at > least the people over on turbine-user will be able to upgrade to TDK-2.2 with > the decoupled Torque, which is a reasonably stable and maintainable codebase. > Am I completely crazy or am I making sense? > > Once again, thanks for all the hard work you have put into Turbine over the > years! > > Regards, > > -- Rodney > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > . > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
