The write-up on this web-site is quite unintelligible.
I don't speak a perfect english either:)
Can't understand what they found missing in Turbine.
What I think is missing is a clean component oriented framework (Avalon) to manage and exchange services. There are been various move and takl in this direction (fulcrum, plexus). One problem with fulcrum is that is based on a deprecated API (ECM) and should be based on Fortress in the future. Another problem is in the way the component framework is loaded. 2 possible scenario
1.The servlet container load turbine which load the component framework which load the services. This is great as it allows you to package you app as a war file.
2.The Avalon container load the component. Among those components, you can have utility components (eg Cornerstone), company related components (eg your company security services), an component which will export those services (in html with Jetty, in xml with soap, in java with AltRmi). This is comparable with deploying turbine inside Jboss.
As it is designed, Xiaokang could offer both solutions when Fortress and Fulcrum follow the 1st deployment alternative.
Some advantages of what xiokang is in achieving:
flexible deployment solutions
have the ability to easily share components between the Avalon, Coccon, or any other Avalon based community without having to hack anything
have it all configured through JMX
have an email server, ftp server, etc, all under the same tree (and Enterprise Object Broker)
use java best practices (Avalon)
It is not about changing turbine, but having your favorite servlet framework running along side with Avalon.
d:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
