cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: FOM blocking 2.1 release
Date Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:19:02 GMT
on 6/15/03 3:53 PM Christopher Oliver wrote:

> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ovidiu wrote the FOM with "let's cover everything" mindset. He restated
>>the fact that he likes this approach better on his last mail to this list.
>>
>>The problem I have with this approach is that *NO* part of Cocoon has
>>been designed like this, but rather with more XP-like approaches of
>>"start small and grow with needs, questioning them everytime".
> 
> Sorry, I don't agree with your characterization of Ovidiu's approach. 
> Anyway, I guess you're welcome do what you like, but I for one would 
> like to see more _actual_ use of the current flowscript implementation 
> before jumping to the conclusion that a new design is going to make a 
> significant difference.

Cocoon has been designed with incremental darwinistic design. Which
means: add a feature *ONLY* if absolutely necessary and backed up with
*real* use-case scenarios which cannot be done elegantly in any other way.

You say that we need more _actual_ use of the flowscript to understand
what are the best practices: I CANNOT AGREE MORE!

But my approach at design is orthogonal to yours and Ovidiu's: you give
full access and expect to deprecate things that are harmful, I give
access only to those things that are needed today and plan to add things
at user request, provided a community discussion and a real-life reason
for it.

So, more than redesigning the FOM (and stepping on people's egos in
doing so), what I want to change is the "design approach" to the FOM
which is what really concerns me.

Ricardo and I identified in our proposal a *MINIMAL* set of methods that
make up the FOM. Minimal means that we could not remove anything without
considering a meaningful case where we would need it.

Will it be complete? of course not, we expect it to be in need for being
extended. But extending a contract is never a problem, reducing it is,
and big time so.

But I'm starting to realize that this moves sounds like a "coup d'etat"
and I don't want to make it look like so.

So I'll start a vote on this to see how the community feels about it
because last thing I want to do is to make it look like this is a
personal crusade.

-- 
Stefano.



Mime
View raw message