cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: block perspectives
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:51:19 GMT
Berin Loritsch wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> ...
>>> Because while deploying an avalon block in cocoon might make sense, 
>>> deploying a cocoon block in merlin wouldn't make any sense at all.
>> Exactly the point.
>> Cocoon is not a generic container, it's a very specific container, and 
>> our blocks can only work with Cocoon.
>> What should instead be seen, is how to make Cocoon be based *on* 
>> Fortress and be usable *in* Merlin.
> That and how is the Cocoon block definition conflicting with Avalon
> definition for blocks.  I believe there is some conflict, and since
> it seems that the Cocoon community doesn't want to have a two way
> compatibility going on with Cocoon blocks, 

It's not that we don't want only, it's that it doesn't make sense to use 
a Cocoon block in a generic Avalon container.

If we use the same plug for electricity power and data signals, it 
doesn't mean that we can plug them together and want them to work somehow.

> then it would be in everyone's
> best interest to make Cocoon blocks with Cocoon proprietary locations
> for meta-info.  Change BLOCK-INF to COCOON-INF, and any block definition
> conflicts go away.  That would be enough for now.

No problem with that.

In fact the suggestions were to keep a common place but distinguish on 
DTD, so that future convergence could be easier. If you prefer the more 
clear-cut solution, I have no problem with it.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message