cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <>
Subject Re: Removing some of the irons from the fire [was Re: [Design] ContainerManager is under fire--let's find the best resolution]
Date Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:13:29 GMT
>So, while the first 2 points don't belong to this list (no matter how
>much Cocoon is tied to avalon), only the third does. But I will be
>*STRONGLY* against changing any deep structure before Cocoon stabilizes
>from a usability point of view.
+1 - Amen.  There are many areas that need incremental improvement 
before the foundation gets ripped
up again.

>While I understand the concepts that Berin proposes, I think they are
>something for Cocoon 3. There are *much* more important things to do on
>Cocoon (docs, the flowmap integration, blocks) before even trying to fix
>deep architectural imperfections (which are yet to be demostrated,
>SoC, damn it.
>So, let's move the discussion on Avalon 5 in avalon-dev and when that
>effort is done, we'll move it over to cocoon-dev and discuss a possible
>Cocoon 3.0 internal branch... but with three/four books coming out, it
>would be a *SUICIDE* even to start talking about changing those
>interfaces right now, no matter how elegant the new framework will be.
+1 - I know many folks interested in using Cocoon that ripping up the 
foundation would seriously
turn off.

>In case you didn't know, there are companies outthere who are using
>Cocoon or evaluating cocoon for their commercial use and investing
>millions of dollars on our architectural solidity. 
>This doesn't mean that we can't improve, but we must be *very* concerned
>about the timing, the reasons and the intentions.
And thats why its 2.1 but not 3.0.  2.1 implies improvement but not 
revolutionary change.  Granted with
the opensource environment and the way I know a how a certain contingent 
of this community work.
(Build brilliant stuff that only they understand, provide no 
documentation or explanation and wonder why no one uses it
and every one creates their own.)  So perhaps once 2.0.3 is out a new 
branch 3.0 should start for those who
want to start a revolution.  The 2.1, 2.2, etc series can continue and 
mature and 3.0 can be marked "absolutely do not
use unless you like exceptions".  The book writers can watch the commit 
logs and start their "second editions" ;-).  
But devils and angels alike atack those who have three or more CVS branches.


>Hope this is clear to everybody.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message