Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Reply-To: <bloritsch@citi-us.com>
From: "Berin Loritsch" <bloritsch@citi-us.com>
To: "'Avalon Developers List'" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: On Multiple Containers
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:30:59 -0500
Message-ID: <002901c2919c$e7a681d0$2100a8c0@acsdom1.citius.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3DDD3D4B.4000103@apache.org>
Importance: Normal

> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org]
> 
> Cocoon is also a framework.
> 
> Tell me: if Cocoon was shipping four different implementations of the 
> Cocoon internal interfaces for every time a new vocal 
> developer comes in 
> and doesn't like what the community decides, would that make it 
> perceived as a better project from the user community?

Apples and oranges.

Avalon is a horizontal framework.  That means that it is equally usable
in many many different contexts.

Cocoon is a more vertical framework.  It is designed for the purpose
of XML based applications.  The focus is *much* narrower than Avalon,
even though it is very flexible.  Cocoon has a standard set of components
that are well defined.  If a developer changed the components of what
makes up Cocoon, then the product would cease to be Cocoon.

Also keep in mind that in the end we really only have three containers.
ECM is going to go the way of the graveyard after we have a replacement
for it (and not before).  That leaves Fortress, Merlin, and Phoenix.
Two of those are embeddable, so they have the potential of being the
replacement.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>