Hi Thomas, I am currently actively working with two turbine projects. One, uses velocity for rendering and the only fulcrum services we use are the security service with a lot of custom extensions and the Global Cache Service. This is a large application with over 150 separate services, and most are specific to the application.
For the other application I have thrown out Velocity and its associated services. I use basically the pipeline (with custom valves), and a pure java page layout component based on an xml document object. The reasoning behind this is that I wanted to move to a purely xhtml 1.0 strict dtd for layouts and decided that any form of scripting was inappropriate, far better to use an xml document object model, with a library of xhtml 1.0 compliant tags. So far this has proved very successful. I hope to propose this for addition to fulcrum in due course. The result of this is that I am not using any of the fulcrum services, and need to retain the velocity classes only until I get round to making the error handler in Turbine.java pluggable. However, the fact that I have been able to do this shows how good turbine is as a framework when you need to develop custom processing models. You will understand from this that I would love to see all the turbine services migrated to fulcrum, leaving turbine itself as a much slimmed down framework, with the ability to use the fulcrum components together with components based on other component models. For the last couple of years I have been thinking that when my next contract runs out, I may have a couple of weeks to tidy things up. But it never seems to work out like that :-) I'm sorry that I cannot help by answering your question more fully. Regards, Peter On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 20:38 +0100, Thomas Vandahl wrote: > Peter Courcoux wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Personally I think t 2.4 is the better way to go. The pipeline is more > > flexible and moving services from the main turbine source tree to > > fulcrum is a step forward. > > Hi Peter, > > as you use Turbine 2.4M1 in projects, I'm interested in your experiences > with the Fulcrum components. IMO some of them are not at the same level > of functionality and quality as their Turbine 2.3 counterparts. What do > you think? Which of them do you use? What components are missing? > > Bye, Thomas. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- -------------------- Peter Courcoux Mobile: 07880 605626 -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
