Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:44:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [RT] FOM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Cc: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
To: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
From: Ovidiu Predescu <ovidiu@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <3ED39F6B.5080906@apache.org>
Message-Id: <414C95B8-90E0-11D7-9835-00039398D61E@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 10:24 US/Pacific, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> on 5/27/03 1:44 AM Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Pier and I already stated a while back that our current implementation
>> of the FOM is weak and its design poor.
>
> In the past, it was exactly such comments that made Ovidiu abandon this
> community.
>
> Let me state things clearly so that we can clear the sky even on this:
>
> Ovidiu, please excuse me for copying you on this, but I would like to
> let you and everybody else know this:
>
>  1) I've always been impressed and very supportive of the work done by
> Ovidiu, Chris and all the people that made flowscript in Cocoon 
> possible.
>
>  2) I think that Ovidiu, by himself, did an *outstanding* job in 
> finding
> out a way to connect the flowscript layer with the sitemap in a way 
> that
> kept SoC. The notion of the sendPage*() methods appears very simple and
> obvious, but only because it's perfect for the job.
>
>  3) I stated that the Flowscript was not done in cooperation of the
> community oversight and that I wanted this to end. This was harsh and
> stupid. I sincerely regret having said that. It goes along with my
> apologies to Carsten and my resigning from Cocoon chair to pay off my
> faults.

All right, apologies accepted.

> now, what I disliked about the FOM was that it seemed to me that it was
> designed to allow maximum access to the cocoon environment, without
> taking into consideration potential abuse. The FOM I outlined in my
> previous message goes into that direction: "less is more" and add 
> things
> incrementally would the need emerge.

Yes, the initial implementation allows the JS layer to pretty much 
control all of Cocoon. I personally like this power and I thought it's 
good to leave it out there for people to experiment with. It feels 
somewhat hacky, but just because things got added as the need arose.

> Since we will need to support the FOM for years to come after we 
> release
> 2.1, I wanted to avoid at all costs the problem of having to deprecate
> stuff from the object model.

I personally like the other approach, deprecate things as the need for 
them disappears, and when better approaches become apparent. Software 
is like a living thing, it grows and transforms in ways impossible to 
predict for its creators. I don't want to arbitrarily restrict this 
power, although it's always good to have some order.

> At the end, I would like to apologize with Ovidiu and Chris for my
> harsh, arrogant and silly behavior on this matter, which somewhat
> resonated even on my last message.

I just hope your real thoughts are those expressed in this email. Shall 
I?

> As much as I did with Carsten, I would like to clear the sky and make
> sure that my presence doesn't remove the fun for anybody or doesn't
> prevent brilliant and important members of this community from lurking
> or coming back to work with us, would the itch/time/will/energy emerge
> again in the future.

Thanks for the invitation, I hope I'll find the energy and time to 
contribute again to Cocoon.

Regards,
Ovidiu