cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Sutic" <leo.su...@inspireinfrastructure.com>
Subject RE: [Kernel2.2] Comments
Date Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:59:35 GMT


> From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG] 
> 
> Leo Sutic <leo.sutic@inspireinfrastructure.com> writes:
> 
> <big snip/>
> 
> > My whole argument is that your design will end up being very very
> > complicated and very very hard to develop for, since it 
> > provides so few 
> > guarantees to block developers. Things like "what code is 
> > running", for
> > example.
> 
> So if you've got something for which blocks are not suited 
> (like perhaps SSL, or a DB pool), don't use blocks; use 
> modules or whatever it is that does give you the contract you 
> want.  The rest of Cocoon isn't going away...

I thought Blocks would be the new, well, building blocks of
cocoon. As Stefano said here:

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108014494301217&w=2
    What does this mean for you?

    Well, it's rather simple: old code will work in an avalon sandbox.
It 
    basically means that it will see cocoon *exactly* as it used to be
before.

    But this will also mean that will be isolated from other blocks and
will 
    not be able, for example, to load components from other blocks.

So, the rest of Cocoon isn't going away, but it isn't going anywhere
else either.

/LS


Mime
View raw message