cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>
Subject Re: [proposal] Cleaning up our component library
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:51:35 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>  
>
>>So alltogether:
>>
>>a) Components that are just renamed or replaced with only sitemap 
>>changes (FileGenerator => XMLGenerator, DirectoryGenerator => 
>>TraversableGenerator (or however it is called ;-) ), StreamGenerator => 
>>XMLGenerator + ModuleSource) are deprecated in 2.1 and removed in 2.2.
>>b) Components that need "real" application changes as processPipelineTo 
>>or anything similar are also deprecated in 2.1, but will be kept in 2.2.
>>c) Deprecation messages:
>>Strict deprecation for a) components. 80% are catched by "file" => "xml" 
>>and "file" is the default generator and "xml" will be it.
>>Loose deprecation with a warning on every usage (otherwise they are to 
>>easily lost in the logs) for b) components. If we also use strict 
>>deprecation here, we don't really need b).
>>
>>    
>>
>Some general notes:
>
>I think whatever we do in this area, we should make a vote for each change.
>  
>

Totally agree. Please do not make such changes without voting first on 
each change.

For example, I already have objectsion against renaming File / Directory 
Generators - those are the most intuitive / easy-to-use components we 
have today. File and Directory abstractions are well known throughout 
the computing world (including non-English speakers); and File / 
Directory does not have to be on the file system, they could be 
anywhere: WebDAV, XML:DB, etc.

OTOH, TraversableGenerator is just *horrible* name.


>And we should only move things into the deprecated part if there is a
>usable alternative. IMHO, using flow instead of a transformer isn't really
>an alternative as the overhead is way to much (just my opinion here).
>  
>

-1 to replacing of SourceWritingTransformer with the flosw. It's name is 
a bit misleading, and SourceCopyAction sounds better to me, but any 
alternative to SWT must be non-flow.


>And we should avoid the renaming trap - which means renaming things just
>because a "not so perfect" name has been chosen in the first place. IMHO
>there is no real use in this.
>  
>

Ditto.

Vadim


Mime
View raw message