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.
You are right .. it doesn't look like the future of Turbine is very clear at the moment. Turbine 2.x works fine, Turbine 3.x works fine ... both are used in production .. but they aren't really perfect. > > 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? Yes, yes I'm working on some projects basen on turbine-2 and torque. > 2. Have you moved on (ie: permanently left the Turbine community)? no > 3. Will you resurface soon with an alternative to Turbine? no > > 4. Will you help maintain Turbine 2.x in the future? Yes, as long as we don't have a better alternative Here's my plan: * release Torque 3.0 and Turbine 2.2 as there are many people using it and we definitly need a release as some people aren't allowed to use alphas, betas, .. 2.2 has tons of bugfixes and we should stop people from using 2.1 * wait for Jason's "plexus and summit are ready for public consumtion" message i looked at the stuff Jason is doing and it looks good to me (mutch better as the turbine-3 aproach) if it's easy to migrate existing turbine apps to summit/plexus i'm +1 to make it the turbine successor * migrate from torque to ojb (there must be a migration path to make it easy ... maybe we can generate the om/peer stuff with ojb as backend .. i'm working on a project with tons of tables and i don't want to start from scratch) * try to bring all forward/revers engeneers together to start an universal generator which not only generates sql and om stuff but also templates for turbine (or summit or whatever it will be called ;-), frames for swing (like the autoform stuff in m$ access (but much better ;-) maybe commons-sql is a good starting point ... > 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? +1 for backporting the stuff from fulcrum to turbine-2 martin > > > Once again, thanks for all the hard work you have put into Turbine over the > years! > > Regards, > > -- Rodney > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > For additional commands, e-mail: -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
