On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:38, you wrote: > > 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? > > Yes :-) If the majority of people are still using the couple services > then I would be willing to help to extract the service code and make it > work with Summit. IMO, Fulcrum is a dead-end. The code that is valuable > like Intake and Localization goodies can be shunted into the commons and > used from there to make Avalon components.
The main services our application depends on (apart from the ones the T2 core depends on) are the Intake, Security, Scheduler and Velocity services. As far as I know, the differences between the coupled versions and the Fulcrum versions are minor. Am I right? I am willing to put in as much work as I can to fix any problems with the coupled services. Does anyone know how much extra work has been put into the Fulcrum services that hasn't been backported to T2? > 5) Turbine has a unique place in the webapp development space but we're > going to get pummeled by frameworks like JPublish and Webwork if we > don't get our shit together. I guess that's why I started this thread in the first place... thanks for such a detailed reply :) > The security service is also another disaster. If someone harvested the > email and searched for the issue attracting the greatest number of > gripes the security implementation would probably win. It's time to stop > patting ourselves on the back and cull the herd. I realise that the current security implementation (ie: users, groups, roles and permissions) is far from being universally applicable, but it does work quite well for many web applications and there are many Turbine 2.x users that depend on it. I have had a brief look at Henning's DBSecurityService proposal and it does seem like a much better implementation of the CustomUser or extended TurbineUser concept. I think the first step we should take is to clean up the coupled T2 Security service so that it works for those people who have had to extend TurbineUser in their T2.1 applications. Then we release Turbine 2.2. Then, down the track, we convert Henning's proposal into a pluggable Avalon component. I think that would be the easiest migration path for anyone currently depending on the coupled T2 Security service. Does anyone know how much work has been put into the Fulcrum Security service? Thanks, -- Rodney -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
