"Courcoux Peter, Slough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Having done it a couple of times, I think turbine 2.3 --> turbine 2.4
>migration is pretty straight forward at present.
>Having spoken at length with Eric recently, we are both tending towards
>proposing Excalibur-Fortress as the default container for Avalon style
>components in turbine 2.4. If anyone has anything to contribute on this
>topic, please do so. It would be great to get opinions...
I don't know much about Avalon but as I can see, Excalibur is a very
limited container. Fortress was mentioned on avalon-dev as a good
container until the various flame wars and splits swamped the list and
made it unreadable.
So, yes, if it is not too much hassle, I would prefer Fortress over
Excalibur. But it should be your call.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development
"Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re-
fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's
position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied -
is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it
deserves to be on this list of the top five problems."
-- Michelle Levesque, "Fundamental Issues with
Open Source Software Development"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
