cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Chance" <>
Subject RE: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Date Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:50:00 GMT

You make good points and I see where you are coming from.  I recall when the
idea of having users build their own binaries was first begun.  Their were
problems with "OutofMemory" excpetions which caused the build to fail,
unless ant options were changed.  Additionally, the build properties file(s)
were made more complex and added confusion (maybe just to users though).

Maybe my angst is really unfounded and I just want a binary because I "feel"
like I have the "whole" application.  However, as you said, Cocoon is a
framework, and not just a single application.  Maybe what I'm really wanting
is a clear definition of just what Cocoon is and what the optional
components ("blocks"?) are.  I suppose all that is documented and we
(collectively) have read the docs!  Bumber!  :-)

I think I'm a good example of who to cater to as I am a fairly novice
developer.  What I mean is if I (or someone like me) can get it without
doing "thesis-like" research, I would be more able to embrace it.

Either way, I'm simply a voice from the cheap seats...although I hope to
become an advanced developer!


-----Original Message-----
From: Sonny Sukumar []
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??

Is there a document that explains line by line what each of the entries in is?  Some of them weren't clear to me, so I just guessed
whether I needed them or not.

>From: Geoff Howard <>
>Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
>Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:21:17 -0400
>Sam Chance wrote:
>>As a user...the binary is essential.  I understand it makes it easier for
>>the developers, but I think the issue needs to be revisited with an intent
>>to distribute a binary.
>Ok, first of all - I hear you and will raise this issue again on the dev
>list. (cc'd).  Can I ask you to elaborate on why you think the one step
>build is just out of the question for you?  Is it the ease of first use
>when evaluating?  Is it the build time?  Is there something not provided
>that is needed?  Honestly, everyone has been very open minded about this
>but had a hard time coming up with a quantifiable reason.
>But also,
>- just to reiterate.  This was not meant to make it easier on the
>developers, but the users.  It was observed that Cocoon is not really a
>thing that you just "use" -- it's a framework that lets you develop
>something.  And starting that process was very painful with a binary
>distribution and it is much better with the current one.  There is just so
>much in the distribution that any one person doesn't need all of it.
>- this was never intended as a permanent direction for Cocoon.  The arrival
>of hot-pluggable "real" blocks in (probably) the next release will give the
>best of both worlds.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Derek Hohls []
>>Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:13 AM
>>Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
>>The explanation given here is *not* an explanation
>>at all - not all of us are subscribers to the developers
>>list and so are not party to the discussions that prompted
>>this decision - perhaps one of the developers can
>>summarise the issues and update the website - then the
>>rest of us can have  a chance to comment.
>>PS If you do decide to not release a binary verrsion, then
>>you certainly should remove the link to the
>>Binary distributions archive (link on this page)
>>>>> 15/08/2003 06:39:43 >>>
>>Frans Thamura wrote:
>>>Where is the binary???
>>Second paragraph.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

View raw message