I do not agree with this. T3 is usable and very flexible, it doesn't have to be perfect. I have one performance improvement I'd like to make, but overall it is a good servlet.
I see a t3 release that still allowed usage of fulcrum services to be in the best interest of those who have adopted these codebases. I currently have a semi-working prototype that allows usage of fulcrum services and avalon components. If its not pretty internally, I think it will be useful for those who have built products on the fulcrum service model. I think one of the problems of t3/fulcrum was that there was an assumption by at least me, that t3 was not supposed to move in as the latest release until after t2.2 was released. So while I think t3 should be released I don't think it has to mean t4 should be held back. Right now users looking to jakarta for a webapp framework have struts or turbine2.1. I fully support the direction Jason is trying to push the design of applications and so do the other turbine developers, so there is no reason summit cannot be the basis for t4. But if there are others who have their livelihoods as tied up in t3 and fulcrum technology as I do, they will be very disheartened by statements that t3 and fulcrum should not be released and abandoned. They should be released and I will make sure that they are assuming I can overcome -1's on it. john mcnally On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 21:58, Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 00:20, Stephen Haberman wrote: > > > 1) Turbine 3 should never be released. > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
