cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@digitalinsight.com>
Subject RE: Goal of the Cocoon TLP
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:17:16 GMT
Top Level Project

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Toper [mailto:ntoper@jouve.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 8:08 AM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Goal of the Cocoon TLP
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been following this thread and I've kept wondering: what 
> is a TLP???
> 
> :=)
> 
> nicolas
> 
> Le Jeudi 05 Février 2004 16:17, Geoff Howard a écrit :
> > Tim Larson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 08:48:29AM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > >>On 5 Feb 2004, at 06:46, Geoff Howard wrote:
> > >>>Would there be benefit to keeping it more general: "XML based
> > >>>application and publishing framework and applications 
> built on and in
> > >>>support of that framework".
> > >>
> > >>As for the charter, I agree with Goeff here: we need to 
> keep it general
> > >>or we would need the board to change our charter every day.
> > >>
> > >>So, I would:
> > >>
> > >> 1) keep it language neutral: many people dislike java, 
> but they can
> > >>leave with it if th application is worth the effort 
> (think lisp and
> > >>emacs, for example)
> > >>
> > >> 2) keep it technology neutral (don't say XML/XSLT/SAX/DOM)
> > >>
> > >> 3) aim to identify the achitectural principles (modularity,
> > >>composability, separation of concerns, feature reductionism)
> > >
> > > If the board requires specific technology names, lets keep the
> > > technology choices low-key.  We could talk about the architectural
> > > principles and then just mention that this is "currently 
> implemented
> > > using" XYZ technologies.  This would let us be specific about the
> > > technologies in use now, without creating a social 
> contract to always
> > > use this same list of technologies.
> > >
> > > I hope the architectural principles are enough so this document
> > > will not have to specifically mention Java, SAX, etc.  
> Like Stefano,
> > > I think Cocoon's main purpose is to make it possible to 
> follow good
> > > design principles, such as SoC, modularity, etc., and 
> pushing certain
> > > technologies is merely a side effect of needing to have an actual
> > > implementation of the framework.
> >
> > We should actually be distinguishing carefully here IMO 
> between Cocoon's
> > purpose, and the purpose of the Cocoon TLP.  I think we all 
> agree that
> > for the foreseeable future, we should keep Cocoon proper 
> focused on XML
> > pipelines, using Java.  If someone wants to make a .Net 
> port of Cocoon
> > and make it work using binary pipelines, using C#, then we 
> could make a
> > sister project within the TLP called Cartoon or something.  
> It would be
> > out of scope for Cocoon to do that, but not necessarily for the TLP.
> >
> > Now, the question in my mind is "how far to we want the TLP to be
> > allowed to go away from what we now know of Cocoon?" so we 
> don't get a
> > TLP that has to allow projects to do anything with any 
> technology but
> > also don't have undue burden to innovate.
> >
> > Geoff
> 

Mime
View raw message