Please excuse my posting in English. I read this thread through Babelfish when I saw it as a referrer on my blog entry. There were a couple things I wanted to reply to so I asked Rafael and he said posting in English is ok.
I think the quality of the code in JForum was good. It has a clean architecture which is one of the things we checked before committing to the project.
We did make some bug fixes and a couple performances changes in addition to the UI and JavaRanch specific stuff. We plan to let you know what they are in the coming months in case you want them for JForum 3. (I expect we will be quite busy at the beginning, but then things will settle down.) Before sending you that, I need to see which bugs were in the original JForum and which were later introduce by our changes :).
Regarding Andrew’s comment about features, it’s not that JForum had gaping holes in the feature set. There’s always going to be some missing features - we’ve been on the old software (and tweaking it) for many years. People get used to things. For us though, the biggest piece of work was migrating data from the old system correctly. This was work that needed to be done regardless of what software we moved to. So new software needed to offer something we didn’t have that we really wanted, not just support the features we already had. After all, who wants to spend a year working on something to be back to where you were before it started.
Needless to say, the fact that we went with JForum speaks for itself. I’m very happy that it exists as open source software and glad we are using it.
Jeanne Boyarsky
JavaRanch Sheriff