[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       turbine-user
Subject:    Re: Doc to promote turbine
From:       Peter Courcoux <peter () courcoux ! biz>
Date:       2006-12-03 15:27:28
Message-ID: 1165159648.5094.32.camel () mercury ! courcoux ! biz
[Download RAW message or body]

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: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
-- 
--------------------
Peter Courcoux
Mobile: 07880 605626
--------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]