Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <4017DF29.7070500@reverycodes.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:11:21 -0500
From: Vadim Gritsenko <vadim@reverycodes.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] Cleaning up our component library
References: <LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMAECAHGAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
 <4017CC77.6030007@reverycodes.com> <4017D8F6.9070700@leverageweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4017D8F6.9070700@leverageweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Geoff Howard wrote:

> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> You mean to change SWT to an Action?


I mean that there is already an action written to copy sources, if I'm 
not mistaken, which can copy one sosurce to another. Combined with 
cocoon protocol and all other protocols you can do a lot with it. But 
I'm not saying that I've analyzed all use cases and we should remove SWT.

Some javadoc in SWT pointing to copy action (or other, more preferred, 
way) is the first step towards better use practices.

Vadim