Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@internuscorp.com>
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Flow as a block
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:01:26 +0800
References: <LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMOEMECPAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
 <200303151625.53071.niclas@hedhman.org> <3E72F45A.2080509@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E72F45A.2080509@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200303151801.26997.niclas@hedhman.org>

On Saturday 15 March 2003 17:37, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote, On 15/03/2003 9.25:
> > On Friday 14 March 2003 22:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 14/03/2003 14.49:
> >>>But I would like to be able to build cocoon without them and prevent
> >>>people with the ability to use them to solve their problems. Just li=
ke
> >>>Carsten wants to do with the flow or XSP.
> >>
> >>That's not the reason IIUC.
> >>Flow adds new dependencies to Cocoon as jars, actions do not. What is
> >>the technical reason why actions have to be able to be removed?
> >>
> >>If you don't want to use them, don't. Since people will be able to
> >>compile with the support in, they will do so, and you will not preven=
t
> >>them to use actions (nor ATM it's desireable).
> >
> > Well, if you become a Cocoon hosting service, you may have a differen=
t
> > opinion of what other people can do in their sitemaps.
>
> Good point... if only removing actions would be a solution. If I were a
> Cocoon hosting service, I would want complete control on all the
> components that users can use, but that has nothing to do with Actions
> per se IIUC, but about the implementations of Cocoon components and the
> possibility of using them.
>
> Any suggestion on what you would want to have to create your costomized
> version of Cocoon given the above point?

Well, I am not in that position, just came yo think about the possibility=
=2E..
OTOH, a lot can be solved with Java codebase security as well, so....???

Niclas