cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <>
Subject Re: From Woody to CocoonForms
Date Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:49:58 GMT wrote:

>>I could be wrong (that happens often enough), but what if we 
>>replace Woody/Cocoon Forms with something better?  If it is very
>>different then IMHO just a namespace version change 1.0->2.0, etc. may
>>not make a lot of sense.  A new name may be in order at that point.
>>If we start the pattern with CForms then we have a non-fantasy name,
>>while still leaving room for future names for new forms frameworks
>>(Super Forms -> SForms, etc.)
>+1 from me. :-)
>I thought of the present variations, which are all nominated for
>deprecation, but yes, looking to the future you keep the possibility of
>Yes, ideally there will be only one type of forms and nothing more, but I
>suppose that was the idea too when XMLForms emerged.
>Why not meet halfway: wforms as a contribution to the old name (woody) and
>allow for a possible future sforms.
>I think Cocoon is powerful enough "as a brand" to allow for different names.
>After all, reading into Cocoon dropped many more projects/names etc. in my
>lap: avalon, excalibur, xindice, poi, batik, etc.
>Ok, woody "emerged" from Cocoon, and I don't want to repeat the "yes/no
>renaming discussion", but I don't think you have to be that strict.

That's the point: Cocoon Forms is part of Cocoon and supported by the 
Cocoon community. If somebody wants to come up with another 
implementation we won't stop him but it will *not* be the official forms 
framework. And if we think one day that the new framework is superior to 
the old one we can decide that we want to have a new Cocoon Forms 
version (indicated by the version number --> also note: Cocoon 1.0 has 
from the technological base nothin in common with Cocoon 2.0!)

Going this way we can be sure that there is only one 'official' forms 


View raw message