cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Noels <stev...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Revisiting Woody's form definition
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:47:22 GMT
On 29/07/2003 18:17 Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Marc Portier wrote

>> I do understand this might break some backwards compat stuff, but the 
>> block is labeled 'unstable' and 'alfa' precisely because we know this 
>> is bound to happen
>>
>> nevertheless Bruno is doing an effort to notify the users list of 
>> important changes in the usage of Woody (making sure were not abusing 
>> our early adopters here)... I would like us to continue that effort
> 
> Can't we provide a compatibility mode by running an XSL transformation 
> to the newer format triggered by an older namespace ?

Speaking against my own case: I would seriously loath to see _already_ 
compatibility layers being introduced into Woody at this early stage.

If Woody is to become a real value proposition for some serious form 
handling in Cocoon-space and the community is willing to refactor (and 
break compatibility) the hell out of it to arrive at this stage, I find 
the current rate of adoption of Woody isn't big enough to already warant 
compromises and compatibility stuff.

I find it much more important that as much people as possible 
intellectually 'own' Woody's design and code than having to explain 
early adopters (even if we (=OT) made them do so) that stuff will be 
breaking from here until Woody stabilizes. I'm pretty sure these early 
adopters will see the value of using code that is 'owned' by more than 
OT-peeps only.

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org


Mime
View raw message