cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsber...@STJUDE.ORG>
Subject RE: [Kernel2.2] Comments
Date Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:05:58 GMT
Pier Fumagalli <pier@betaversion.org> writes:
> 
> On 31 Mar 2004, at 18:43, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> > 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...
> 
> Well, I'm actually using the framework to build two things for my 
> employer: an XML repository backed up by a DataBase 
> (connection pooling 
> and JDBC connections flying all around) and a HTTP/HTTPS NIO based 
> (possibly with ESI support) proxy server that we're going to use as a 
> Cocoon-frontend.

Yah, I saw your mention of that; that's partly why I included
"possibly".  Personally, I don't see the possibility, but if Leo thinks
he does, well then, he's free to code up old style Cocoon code as far as
I can see...

> I'll need to come up with some block examples soon before being so 
> misunderstood! :-)

Hmm, let me see, multi-version, indirect, proxied class loading. Do you
really figure a couple of examples are going to stop you from being
misunderstood? ;-) 


Mime
View raw message