cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <>
Subject Re: [RT] New Input for woody
Date Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:51:25 GMT

Thx. This extra explanation on dywel added onto the understanding 
I already had (important nuances noted)

>>not trivial, maybe possible, useful?
> Hmm, I'm a little unsure. Now, I don't want to destroy the design
> of woody only to make me happy. If it makes sense, to change
> woody: great. If it doesn't, well, then I can live with that
> as well. It's a decision I'm currently not able to make or
> contribute to.
> I think, currently if Dywel will ever work sometime in the distant
> future, it's more elegant to connect to existing business objects
> than woody; but on the other hand woody has great advantage in
> all the other form areas where you don't connect to business objects.

I agree.

That all of this largely resembles each other (Bruno saying I 
reinvented xmlforms adds to that) should be no big surprise since 
all of it tries to solve the same set of problems...

The resemblence is a great way IMO to realize none of us is 
completely on the wrong track, but it can't prevent the different 
alternatives to take specific differentiating positions that will 
make them more elegant to use in very specific situations.

Woody has everything in it to grow into a system that can handle 
your bean backends equally well as pure XML backends given the 
loose connection ideas to be found everywhere in the design...

There surely is the commitment (effort currently going on if you 
ask me) to ensure that specific broadly recognised usage models 
could get a simplified mapping onto the current Woody-soc...

but rest assured: none of that effort will ever ensure that in a 
given case there could not be a more specific implementation that 
will be able to cut some corners and provide a more elegant solution.

The above statement probably fits to a large extend to what 
Cocoon as a whole is providing. (and how it is sometimes perceived)

In any case, thx for your input, it already added some nice 
features into the woody-basket (and possibly touching woody 
returned you some of the favor).

I hope you can continue the effort of feeding us your progress on 

Marc Portier                  
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at                        

View raw message