cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Woody scratchpad area
Date Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:33:07 GMT
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 23:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Yes, I do appreciate that there is a status associated with the blocks and
> perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh.  However, I have seen folks in the users
> list saying that Woody is the recommended approach for forms handling.  How
> can an unstable block be the recommended approach?

Maybe because there are no alternatives, or they are even worse than an
"unstable block"?

>   I've also seen questions
> about whether woody is stable and being answered with "Yes".

No, it's always answered with Yes, but ...

>   If so, it
> shouldn't be marked as unstable and things should be locked down.
> 
> This is somewhat off-topic from my previous post but, as I've said before,
> we have looked at woody and have not made the move yet - we are still using
> the simple forms stuff.  We like what we see, but so much of the examples
> documentation is geared towards flow that we have a hard time separating the
> two.  We won't be using flowscript so we really need "Cocoon Forms" to be
> completely separate from it.

And it is! If you find situations where it isn't the case, just let us
know.

>   The major stumbling block was in the areas of
> Woody Bindings - the only provided solution seems to require flowscript.

I'm amazed how you can say that when I've just answered a question to
you (on the users list) about that a couple of hours ago. If my answer
didn't satisfy you, just say so.

Now I'm starting to realize that maybe you're not asking for Java code
samples, but for pre-made actions that you can call with some
parameters?

-- 
Bruno Dumon                             http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org                          bruno@apache.org


Mime
View raw message