Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 00:20, Stephen Haberman wrote: > > >>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. > > > I never wanted it to turn out that way, but that's what happened. I > think if people looked at Summit, scrutinized the API by examining the > UML and provided some use cases all the holes can be found pretty > rapidly. I've got three already that I'm working on: > > o Cleanly providing a way to display binary info. RawScreen has always > been a PITA and confusing as it's a screen with no layout which is a > weird exception. > > o Inter application communication for aggregation and portals. The > Jetspeed use case again. Hopefully David Taylor will help me with this > one. > > o Multiple view types where you might be displaying HTML, XML, WML, SWF > or whatever. Displaying the different types isn't hard but how best to > organize this for a single app trying to display to many devices. Ilkka > has this covered so I'm definitely going to lift things from Tammi.
i looked at the summit stuff and it looks much better!!!! just waiting for your "it's ready for public consumtion" message ;-) > > > >>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. > > > There's no competition here. It's incomprehensible and that's after > several big cleanups. It's just not that good: the code or the > interfaces. Avalon wins hands down. sure .. it would be good to backport stuff from fulcrum to turbine-2 as turbine 2.2 won't use fulcrum > > >>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). > > > OJB has some forward/reverse engineering tools and there are soon going > to be some in commons-sql. There are all kinds of people doing this > stuff but hopefully all this stuff will coalesce. There is also some > bean generation stuff in Jelly that came from stuff I am working in > Tambora. There are tons of people working on stuff and tons of options. > Something with Jelly or Velocity is probably the best bet. +1 it would be good to join forces and try to make an extendable tool commons-sql coud be a good point to start .. just don't know how easy it could be extended ... > > >>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 > > > As long as users are satisfied and a decent upgrade is provided does it > really matter where the code goes? If it all got folded into Avalon that > would be fine with me. If people want it the name of Summit can be > easily changed back to Turbine: I just picked a new name because I'm not > making any assumptions about its acceptance. I do care about the > community: The TDK never really did me any good (maybe it didn't do > anyone any good), I made it for users and I am still the only one who > has ever cut a final release of Turbine, ever. I don't care where the > code goes but I would like the ideas to survive somewhere. hey i did some beta releases!! ;-) jason you are right! it really doesn't matter where the code goes! if all the code goes to other projects and turbine is just an umbrella to bring all stuff together, providing an environment for developing like the tdk should, that's fine for me ... > We'll see. I think Summit is small enough that it can be comprehended a > little easier. It's completely javadoc'd and I will make another pass > and I am working on the documentation. It's part of my full-time job to > document Summit as part of the Tambora effort. I certainly also want to > work with Ilkka and try to combine Tammi and Summit and I think we'll > come out with something that deserves to be at Jakarta. if you think summit is ready to use the turbine community should look at it and decide if it should be the turbine successor ... in the meantime i'll stay with turbine-2 martin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
