Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <3F865C97.1000304@outerthought.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:15:35 +0200
From: Steven Noels <stevenn@outerthought.org>
Organization: Outerthought
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030916 Thunderbird/0.3a
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Renaming Woody to "Cocoon Forms" ?
References: <C856D00A-FA5D-11D7-877F-000393D2CB02@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <C856D00A-FA5D-11D7-877F-000393D2CB02@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Which is a nice example, here, btw: the OT team proposed an alternative 
> flow control concept and an alternative form framework, the community 
> considered the first inferior to what we already had, but considered 
> superior the second and promoted it as "official".

Adapting to better reflect historical accuracy: no single line of Woody 
was written until _after_ Bruno's form proposal was discussed on the 
list. So in the end, the proposal was about design, and not about a 
finished code package being donated to the project. I tend to believe 
that this is exactly the reason why Woody has been able to grow into 
Cocoon Forms.

> [at the hackaton, there was a discussion on why the REST-based approach 
> that Marc proposed cannot be matched one-2-one with the flow approach. 
> Marc agreed that his idea of continuation and the current continuation 
> are different concepts and forcing them into the same terminology might 
> stretch the paradigm too much]
> 
> No matter what the result was, I think forcing people with one solution 
> forced  discussions to happen, which helped all the parties involved, 
> even to understand thing that were not previously understood by both sides.
> 
> This is why having one official direction on the various areas is 
> good(tm) and having a simple name for it "cocoon sitemap" "cocoon flow" 
> "cocoon forms" would help our users to choose and feel more protected 
> and a more solid foundation.

+1 - let's go for "Cocoon Forms" - even if I feel kind of sad seeing the 
name I suggested going away. Oh well - it's about seeing you kids grow 
up, I guess.

Bearing in mind the amount of work that requires a _real_ renaming, like 
changing package names, namespaces and all that - who's going to do that?

Cheers,

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML            An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org