cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <>
Subject Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Date Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:50:47 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>As you already may have noticed, the Avalon community has a new
>roadmap and has a common sense about their future.
>This roadmap includes: burying ECM (which is deprecated anyway),
>burying Fortress and burying most of the Excalibur stuff in the
>long term. The goal is to have one single container which is
>Merlin (or based on Merlin).
>Please, if you want to discuss the future of Avalon or if you think
>that this decision is not good or not correct or whatever, don't use 
>this thread or the cocoon dev list. Go to the Avalon dev list please
>and discuss it with the responsible community. Thanks
>Now, we have a lot of experience with ECM. Some of us helped
>developing it and we are using it for so long that there isn't
>really a problem for us with ECM. So the 2.1.x line has no
>problems with these decisions.
>But for 2.2 this is a little bit problematic. We started with
>the move to Fortress which is now officially dead. Unfortunately
>the move is not finished and even if it would be finished,
>we would be incompatible wrt to configuration to 2.1.x. So there
>is imho a lot of work to do to get Fortress properly running
>for us (note "for us", Fortress is running very well but not
>that compatible to ECM configuration). So actually, there is 
>not much sense to continue this work as we have not much knowledge 
>of Fortress. We recently started digging into it.
>On the other hand, we don't have any knowledge of Merlin now
>and Merlin is currently not compatible to ECM (or more
>precise to the configuration ECM uses). So moving to Merlin
>would result in the same situation as moving to Fortress.
>And in fact it would be more difficult for us as Merlin is different
>from ECM/Fortress in it's design and implementation.
>Our 2.2 release is not about using the best container available,
>the release is about implementing blocks. This implementation
>is container independent, so it shouldn't play a role what container
>we use for blocks. In addition 2.2 is now independent of the
>container implementation as well, so it doesn't play a role
>for the 2.2 core. We could simply switch to any container if
>it supports the old ECM configuration style to 100%.
>So, it seems, the best way to move forward and get into blocks
>development is to revert to ECM in 2.2 for now. This is a very
>simple work as 2.2 is container independent. It would 2.2 make
>immediately usable and compatible to 2.1.x and we could focus
>our development effort on blocks - which is imho more important
>than focusing it on container development.
>If during blocks implementation the need for a better container
>arises, we could switch simply to any container supporting
>the ECM configuration style.
>And: if noone volunteers, I can do the move to ECM over the weekend.
>So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
>this time. Thanks.

+1 as this move shouldn't have any impact to Pier's container *if* we 
decide to use it. It's up to you Carsten if you want to risk that ECM is 
replaced again in a few weeks.


View raw message