Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Neeme Praks" <neeme@one.lv>
To: <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Cocoon2 Design
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:34:12 +0200
Message-ID: <2ECFE9456D0F6A4FA77B38C25AAE230918FD@the.one.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Topic: Cocoon2 Design
Thread-Index: Ab/MqL0qRNneeusEQJKkjHrb69JgrgCZwxYw


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 4:31 PM
>=20
> > Actually, how well is supported the "referral" feature:=20
> together with
> > the POST data the browser also sends the URL of the original page
> > (poster)?
>=20
> You mean to do sessions? Sorry, I need a better example here to
> understand what you mean.

I mean the that when browser requests a page, it also sends the URL of
the "referring" page that linked to the page being requested.
Example with GET:
---- <page1.html> ----
<a href=3D'page2.html'>Click here!</a>
---- </page1.html> ----

So, when the user clicks on the link, the browser send the request for
"page2.html" and includes the URL ("page1.html") of the referring page.
If I remember correctly, it is included in HTTP headers?

Useful, when you would like to return the user to the page he came from,
after completing some action that doesn't produce any output.

> This is unfair. Turbine is "not inferior" by design, I know Jon enough
> to think Turbine has great potential. He was one of the first projects
> to outline the problems in web-app development and respond by=20
> creating a framework for that.
>=20
> Cocoon and Turbine and incredibly similar from a meta-programming
> perspective. But, like Jon once said, it's good to try radically
> different technical approaches to the same problems.
>=20
> Cocoon is more complex and has a more ambitious goal. Turbine is more
> focused but still more powerful than Cocoon in many areas.
>=20
> Open source dynamics act as powerful convergence forces and nor Jon's
> nor my ego are powerful enough to stop that. James Davidson coined a
> wonderful term for that: "software darwinism", where the OSS community
> not supporting a project playes the role of death for biological
> systems.
>=20
> Evaluating a project as "inferior" goes against "software darwinism",
> much like you can't possibly engineer a new biological organism and
> "know" what this will do out in real-life.
>=20
> "Open development" is a huge genetic algorithm. And this is why it's
> more powerful than commercial software: it adapts faster to=20
> enviornment
> changes. "Death is the essence of life" after all, even for open
> software.
>=20
> Please, let's try to be more openminded than that.

sorry for so rash comment. Actually, right after I had sent away my
response to you I found out about the new Struts project... and related
comments. Then I understood, that maybe it is good to have this kind of
evolution by the "survival of the fittest" ;-)

But naturally, as I'm personally more interested in cocoon, I would like
to see as many people as possible working on cocoon ;-) Probably should
hire some myself ;-)

Neeme