Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-57849-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79213 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 09:41:35 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 09:41:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 83080 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2004 09:41:05 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org
Received: (qmail 83048 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2004 09:41:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@cocoon.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received: (qmail 83028 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 09:41:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO trinity.anyware-tech.com) (217.112.237.100)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 09:41:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 11724 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 09:41:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO apache.org) (10.1.0.254)
  by trinity.anyware-tech.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 09:41:16 -0000
Message-ID: <405AC03B.5020202@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:41:15 +0100
From: Sylvain Wallez <sylvain@apache.org>
Organization: Anyware Technologies
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: fr, en, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
References: <OFAFF4F043.129DDDA3-ONC1256E5C.00252812@sundn.de>
 <405AA631.6090604@cbim.it>
In-Reply-To: <405AA631.6090604@cbim.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Ugo Cei wrote:

<snip/>

> But just out of curiosity, wasn't the move to Fortress for 2.2 somehow 
> dictated by the fact that ECM wasn't considered able to support real 
> blocks?


Nothing that I'm aware of. IIRC, this was mostly because ECM was 
deprecated and because of improvements in pool management.

> Or is my memory failing me?


Maybe mine also ;-)

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }