There seemed to be two parts in this thread: #1 Flux vs Antelope and #2 Container Usage. I'll respond to #1 here.
I think that Flux was pitched as a much more general tool then it really is.. Flux, remember, is just a series of UI screen and a helper tool.. And not that sophisticated of a helper tool... It isn't a whole security framework, instead, it just exposes the Turbine Security Framework as a series of screens. In the same way that Antelop also exposes the Fulcrum Security framework. When it comes time to integrate the security editing screens in your app, you'll probably want to reimplement all the screens to have your UI/colour scheme/ etc.. Pretty much the only thing you can really (IMHO) reuse is the com.anite.antelope.modules.tools.SecurityTool. And even that, once you see the example, is pretty trivial to reimplement for your security scheme. Tools should be very thin wrappers over the underlying funcitonality, and therefore easy to write and us Also, Flux endedup forcing developers to use the Flux model of security, with Users/Groups/ROles/permissions. Which is a good model, but not the only one.. In Fulcrum Security there are both the User/Group/Roles/Permissions model and a Users/Groups model.. To generate UI screens for the User/Groups requires reimplementing the screens. So, insofar as Antelope is basically meant as a best practices sample app it does the job extremely well. ERic Pugh > -----Original Message----- > From: tobias rademacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Flux vs Antelope > > > Hi Folks, > > as Peter pointed out that the Flux stuff is outdated and > http://zebra.tigris.org/nonav/antelopeZebraSample/ contains a > bunch of templates, actions and screens which do the same as Flux > did in the past. > > Will the antelope stuff ported back to Flux or will you bury Flux > and provide a new jakarata project based on the anitlope stuff. > As we used Flux in the past and would like to use it in a current > project a short "statement of direction" will be highly appreciated. > > As things normally changes it shouldn't be a problem to use the > antelope stuff instead of flux. We want to be compatile and armed > for the future as much as possible ;). However, Antinate-"Flux" > acutally dependes on turbine 2.4-dev. How stable is turbine 2.4 > currently? Do you recommend it for a production system already? > Or is it still in a unstable/premature state? > > Currently antinate depends heavily on Avalon. As Peter said > Avalon will be the __default__ for Turbine stuff. Default usally > means that you can change it to another IoC > Framwork/Provider/Container/Whatsoever. Shouldn't be > com.anite.antelope.modules.tools.SecurityTool rather a interface > than a concrete Avalon-Fixed apdapter? > Is it enough to provide a own > com.anite.antelope.modules.tools.SecurityTool which is based on > top of a custom Service (e.g SpringService, HiveMindService, > PicoService....)? Anything else to get customize? > > Thx for your comment ;) > > -- > tobias rademacher > [sofwareentwickler] > > innoWake gmbh > innovative.software.development(); > graf-arco-strasse 18 | 89079 ulm-donautal > fon: +49 (0)7 31 - 5 50 27 - 0 > fax: +49 (0)7 31 - 5 50 27 - 20 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.innowake.de > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
