Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E7065EB.5070902@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:05:15 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Flow as a block
References: <LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMOEMECPAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
In-Reply-To: <LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMOEMECPAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Carsten Ziegeler wrote, On 13/03/2003 9.36:
> The flow stuff is an "optional" component, which means I can use it
> or not. Cocoon started as a web publishing framework and as flow is
> not directly a core component for web publishing but for web
> applications, I really would like to see flow as an own block
> that I can either install or not.
> Don't get me wrong, I like flow and I see the use of it, but flow
> is an optional component in the same sense that for example the
> portal framework is an optional component.

Honestly, I don't see this... I see the flow on par with the sitemap, 
and the sitemap is not an optional components.

But the sitemap is pluggable so the flow should be too? I feel bells 
ringing about flexibility syndrome, with everything pluggable... I don't 
see that this will give us a big gain now, apart from some kind of 
architectural componentization.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------