cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett McLaughlin <>
Subject Re: Different Processors
Date Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:48:27 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> James & Sue Ann Birchfield wrote:
> >
> > We have a servlet interface for talking to LDAP's using JNDI, and I can see
> > a nice implementation of a processor.
> That makes perfect sense. I'll be _very_ happy to include it into Cocoon
> when you have something working (and with a decent XML-ized doc :)
> > As far as the MailProcessor, I was
> > thinkong it would be as simple as the SQLProcessor is for connecting to a
> > mail server something like:
> >
> > <serverinformation>
> >  <mailserver></mailserver>
> >  <username>Jim</username>
> >  <password>foobar</password>
> >  <protocol>pop</protocol>
> > </serverinformation>
> >
> > Possibly embedding support for diferent folders and such...
> Did you take a look at JetSpeed under java.apache? It would make much
> more sense, in my vision, to port the entier JetSpeed as producer or
> srtip parts of it. Anyway, integration is the key.
> Let's hear more comments on this.
> Brett, did you follow JetSpeed recently? What's the status of the
> XTurbine port?

Yeah, Kevin (Jetspeed's lead developer) has been working on admin
screens in Turbine, so JetSpeed itself is on temporary hold.  I really
think (personal opinion) that until there is XML capability in Turbine,
either JetSpeed can't use Turbine, or must wait on producer version of

On TurbineX (or whatever):
At work I have a very sweet app that uses Cocoon, and is built on a
"Turbine-esque" framework.  In other words, it is not Turbine, but the
concepts are the ones that Jon and I and John and Frank, et. al. have
been throwing around.  Very loosely coupled system (although mine at
work uses EJB ;-) as well).
The biggest problem I see (and your ideas are welcome) is that we will
have to make a producer version of Turbine.  I do _not_ want to go
outside that model, although I think Jon want to write directly to the
output stream.  Still, the problem is that we can't force every Turbine
user to use Cocoon (I wish) so we will have to keep up two versions of
the "control" structure, one a producer and one a servlet.  I am still
trying to figure out a way around that, but can't come up with
anything.  I may just have to "suck it up" and deal with it.  Any



View raw message