cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <>
Subject Re: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon Forms 1.0
Date Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:25:55 GMT

Reinhard Pötz wrote:

> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>> Tim Larson wrote:
>> ...
>>>> +1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
>>> I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is 
>>> obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
>>> WDOT?
>> Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a 
>> little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
>>   Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
>>   Block Name: cforms
>>   Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
>>   Namespace:

sorry for missing the argumentation on keeping the 'forms' here, or is 
this a typo?

>>   NS Prefix: fd

and similar for binding and templating I presume? we might question if 
reordering the sub-domain and version-no is not more natural then:



>> Title goes to documentation, samples, wiki, etc. Package name "cforms" 
>> and block name "cforms" will allow possibility of parallel development 
>> of the next generation "Cocoon Forms 2.0" (block name dforms ;-)), 
>> when/if it happens. Namespace suggests that Cocoon Forms 1.0 is one 
>> and only official forms framework. Namespace prefix "fd" stands for 
>> "forms definition".
>> Do we have a consensus now? Please chime in on IRC (somebody will have 
>> to count votes then), or here :-)
>> Vadim
> +1 from me!

in prinipal +1 from me too, except for the small 
questions/clarifications above.

(sorry, didn't get to irc today)

maybe just adding arguments that might not be needed any more:

another argument for having [cforms] from my side was that you could 
never confuse it with the known english word 'form' that could mean an 
HTML form, a paper-form, a whatever formalism or whatnot... in 
discussions on these lists, and thus possibly introducing confusion that 
can be avoided

what I liked about 'woody' was that it meant what it meant in a not to 
be confused way (except for those damn aussies of course :-))... 
probably this very property was extended into a perception of having a 
'2nd brand within the cocoon brand'

I think cforms can nicely remove 'the brand within brand' feeling for 
those that find it necessary, stepping into 'forms' would have been 
killing the unique-naming-property that was the original reason for 
looking for a name for it in the first place

Marc Portier                  
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at                          

View raw message