cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Migrate from the aging ECM
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:23:26 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote, On 02/09/2003 19.11:
>
> > Geoff Howard wrote:
> ...
> >> Could someone (Berin?) give an estimate of what the "damage" would be
> >> even if we agree it's a good move?
> >
> >
> > Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy:
> >
> > 1) Legacy Components.  All legacy components are handled as
> expected with
> >    Fortress as long as the components do not expect ECM itself.
>  In 99% of
> >    the cases this is what happens.
> >
> > 2) LogKitManageable.  We can create a Lifecycle extension to
> handle this
> > one,
> >    but for future reference, this is best handled via a ServiceManager
> > lookup.
> >    Fortress natively uses the LoggerManager, so we get the
> migration from
> >    forced LogKit integration for free.
> >
> > 3) Configuration file format is slightly different.  We can create an
> > adaptor
> >    to handle the transition (extending the DefaultContainer
> from Fortress).
> >
> > 4) Components/special selectors that extend ECM directly.
> There is no real
> >    work around for this.  Those components have to be altered.  To my
> > knowledge,
> >    this includes the GeneratorSelector and the SiteMapSelector, and
> > possibly the
> >    SiteMap implementation as well as the central Cocoon object.  As to
> > third
> >    party components, the old ECM libraries would have to be
> included in a
> >    compatibility JAR set.
> >
> > There is nothing (too my knowlege) that cannot be worked around to
> > provide a
> > seemless integration.  What do you all think?
>
> I think that this will bring Cocoon one step ahead by removing some
> wrong dependencies it has with the implementation (ECM) and changing
> them with new more standard and future-compatible contracts.
>
> The "change" is not insignificant, but the "damage" seems very slight
> for non-core Cocoon developers.
>
> +1 for 2.2 switching to Fortress
>
I think we should do this switch asap. *If* we can solve the commandmanager
issue discussed in the other thread, I will make a 2.1.1 release this week.
Immediately after that work can start on the migration.

Berin, you mention above in 3) that the configuration format changes
slightly.
Can you give a short explaination please?

Thanks
Carsten


Mime
View raw message