cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Oliver <res1c...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: FOM blocking 2.1 release
Date Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:50:39 GMT
First of all I'm not advocating a design methodology. Second, I like 
your's and Ricardo's design. And I think we should implement it. Beyond 
that I have nothing to say, specifically about supposed design 
methodology or regarding what should be included in the 2.1 release. I 
retract my earlier statements about both.

Regards,

Chris

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>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.
>
>  
>



Mime
View raw message