> 1) Turbine 3 should never be released. Agreed. Turbine 3 never even made it past alpha, so while a migration path to summit might be nice, I don't think it's required. I've got an app using T3, but me and anyone else who started using T3 are the ones at fault for using an alpha release in the first place.
> 2) Fulcrum should never be released. Agreed. Fulcrum is nice, but Avalon is better, so going with the best of breed is a clear choice. > 3) Torque doesn't hold a candle to OJB. Agreed. I shortly came into Torque awhile ago and had been hoping to help clean it up, refactor the implementation and what not, but the code base is all over the place. I think a 3.0 release is good as lots of people are using it and it's been in beta for awhile, but after that, we should make it very clear that there will not be a 4.0 version. Torque's three main features are Java code generation, DDL generation, and persistence. DDL generation is being handled very nicely by commons-sql, persistence is handled nicely by OJB, but as of yet, there isn't really a Jakarta project for Java code generation. Instead of making this an argument for keeping Torque around, I think a separate project, if individuals are so inclined, to handle Java/UML forword/reverse engineering would be awfully nice and could then perhaps do the sort of stuff Martin was talking about implementing (e.g. generation of Swing/Turbine front-ends based on a model). > 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. Our salvation, I think, has been the > Jakarta moniker. Readily agreed. I almost started a new app on JPublish as the docs impressed me and it seemed like a cleaner, smaller Turbine. Though on closer inspection, unless I'm missing something, it didn't seem as powerful as T2/T3, and it worked out the new app has been pushed off a bit so I can cross my fingers and await summit. > That's pretty much where I stand. I'm going to continue with Summit and > make a Maven plugin for generating apps and there's a small sample app > already in the Plexus repository. I like that you're working on summit. But, I dunno, how does the Turbine community come out of this? With Torque, Maven, and Fulcrum all potentially leaving Turbine's umbrella, perhaps even JCS moving to a commons/incubator area, I really like that Turbine would be focused solely on being a web framework and only a web framework, but I guess I don't know enough about open source yet to figure out how/if/when the various committers and users will circle the wagons and become a real, active, effective community again. I rallied against the lack of community in Torque awhile ago, much as Scott Eade is now, and though I dearly sympathize with him, when I was given the chance to fix things via commit access, I've steadily realized just how bad the situation is. It's really hard to build a community of committers around such code bases; maintaining old, crufty code just sucks. As stated above, I'm in full agreement with your previous statements to the affect that the entire Turbine subproject code base needs rehauling; I'm just hoping that/wondering how an injection of good, clean, tested code will invigorate the community. - Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
