cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Haul <>
Subject Re: [RT] Implementing Cocoon Blocks
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:35:15 GMT
On 26.Aug.2003 -- 06:33 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 11:12 Europe/Rome, Christian Haul wrote:
> >On 17.Aug.2003 -- 07:00 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >>
> >>Issues that were still unsolved
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>1) block identification
> >>
> >>All blocks (behaviors and implementations) are identified by a URI. 
> >>the
> >>format of the URI is as follows:
> >>
> >>     cob:organization/name/x.y(.z)
> >
> >If we would identify a block by an XML document instead of a URI, we
> >could list features of a block. Version numbers are a very poor tool
> >to match requirements and capabilities.
> nonono, you are making the usual URL vs URI mistake: we want to 
> *identify* a block (either its implementation or its behavior). The 
> location service (that is also, metadata discovery about that block) is 
> an entirely separate issue and *MUST* remain the same in order to allow 
> a high level of decoupling between a resource and the actual location 
> of where those resources are.

IOW there is no need to force a naming scheme. So why should we?
Anyway, this was intended for the discussion of

> >> 2) dependency ranges

and I'm glad that you see this problem solved by the discovery
service. However, I don't get why you need dependency ranges:

> >>When a block implementation depends on another block (either
> >>implementation or behavior), it should be able to have an 'elastic'
> >>dependency which doesn't connect it to the versioned identifier, but 
> >>to
> >>a range of those versions.

Which is the whole point of my mail. Don't use dependency ranges, use
metadata specifying capabilities and requirements for this.

C h r i s t i a n       H a u l
    fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837  7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08

View raw message