cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: [RT] Cocoon and web applications
Date Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:33:29 GMT

I missed the start of this thread but I am going to throw in my two-pence ;) 

As a Avalon dev I would have to say that I wouldn't recomend any one from
another project that is as highly evolving as turbine to integrate Avalon
at this stage (unless of course it was someone who was willing to keep up
with Avalon). Avalon is slowly converging to a stable point but we aren't
there yet and consequently there is no guarentees ;)

BTW when I say Avalon in this thread I am talking about the "framework"
part of Avalon.

At 09:07  26/2/01 -0800, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>> > Turbine is a specific framework.  There
>> > is nothing that says that Turbine can't be built on Avalon, nor is there
>> > anything that says that pieces of Turbine could be included in Avalon.
>> Yes there is. The fact that it would end up breaking a lot of people's code
>> and the fact that the configuration is entirely different between Turbine
>> and Avalon. Those are two MAJOR issues that no one here likes to even think
>> about. People just like to say that it can be done...but in reality, it
>> can't unless you want to also upset a lot of people.

Backwards compatability is definetly desirable but as Fede saids - if you
don't want XML configs due to incompatability then don't use it ;) Or
better yet slowly migrate ;)

>My best reward whould be to see cocoon action pattern formalized and
>placed here. 

I would object to it ;)

Don't take this wrong but I don't think Cocoon has the best Action
proposal. It didn't (last time I checked) deal with a lot of things I would
want to see in an action framework. It doesn't differentiate between all
different action routing models or difference between explicit/implicit and
push vs pull actions. I am not saying turbine is perfect either as it also
doesn't deal with implicit/pull actions.

Personally I see turbine/struts/cocoon as good/great for what they do but
not perfect. You may want to have a look at a few other projects to see how
they do things. IIRC there is a project Stones or Rocks from enhydra that
implements brilliant action chain building - and there is qubes that has a
nice quilting of actions. 

Even if such a perfect model was found/built it still probably belongs in
turbine unless there was a use for it in other server environments.

>> Solve those problems and I would be more than happy to have Turbine use
>> Avalon where it makes sense (I have been saying that for years now).
>> However, the fact of the matter is that I don't see it happening unless
>> someone steps up to make it happen. Of course I wouldn't -1 it, but I sure
>> am not going to do it. What I have works just fine now and Avalon isn't my
>> itch. I don't need blocks, I don't need stuff componentized into a
>> pieces. I just need a web app framework.

A volunteer would be great but unless they were following and at least
vocal if not active on Avalon then it could be hell for them. Personally I
would prefer to wait till there is a stable Avalon and then if no one else
steps up I will help turbine use Avalon if thats what the turbine community

>> > This has promise, although I would have to give some time to research
>> > the Turbine MVC patterns.  There is alot that could be learned here.
>> Nice to hear you say that given that the Action framework you just talked
>> about in Cocoon 2 is essentially something that was invented at least 4
>> years ago (even before Turbine existed) by my friend Leon Atkinson and was
>> done first in PHP! 

uhhh ... hello ? He did NOT invent the Action pattern. It has been around
for ages in GUI space and before that it came from simulation field. It was
originally an extention to event simulation IIRC and that has been around
for how long ? ;) 

>>I find it humorous that this same Action framework is
>> also in Struts as well. More re-invention of the wheel because no one
>> bothers to look at Turbine first or people claim that Turbine isn't J2EE so
>> they don't want to use it. Duh. How lame.

One thing I would love to see (but have never mentioned it before because I
am not prepared to do the work ;]) is to see turbine segregated a bit more
- in a similar way to what Avalon has just gone through. 

I would love to be able to use the page/action layer or the persistence
layer or maybe texen or maybe X or Y etc. At this stage it is just too much
effort. I suspect many people are just like me - incredibly lazy ;) and
thus will prefer to reinvent the wheel rather than keep up with turbine.
Alternatively they will fork turbine and just work of the fork.

I don't pretend to understand turbine as well as I used to but I suspect
there is various products that could be extracted out into separate
products. Do this   and I am sure that you will get more developers adopt it.

I was told not so long ago it is better to tie many cotton lines than one
rope when integrating things together. ie Offer them a little and hope to
get them "addicted" to turbine and keep providing and they will keep coming
back and probably convert to your thinking ;) However say that it is the
turbine way or the highway and they will never pick it up at the begining ;)

>This is been said so many times... this happend becouse it's way easier
>and faster to reinvent the weel than dig into turbine. No matter that
>turbine is well designed and documented. 
>I know this is true right now but I don't like it. The best solution I
>can think about is to spend some more effort to get turbine and cocoon
>closer where it's possible so that developers from both sides will find
>easier to dig in the other project. 

Well said !

That said I do think that in the future that it would be very beneficial to
integrate Avalon and Turbine. I would hope that most of web/servlet
specific components were pushed into Turbine and kept out of Avalon though.
Of course this has to wait till Avalon stabilizes more so back I go to
hacking ;)



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message