cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Kernel2.2] Comments
Date Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:33:40 GMT
Leo Sutic wrote:

> 
>>From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG] 
>>
>>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...
> 
> 
> I thought Blocks would be the new, well, building blocks of
> cocoon. As Stefano said here:
> 
>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108014494301217&w=2
>     What does this mean for you?
> 
>     Well, it's rather simple: old code will work in an avalon sandbox.
> It 
>     basically means that it will see cocoon *exactly* as it used to be
> before.
> 
>     But this will also mean that will be isolated from other blocks and
> will 
>     not be able, for example, to load components from other blocks.
> 
> So, the rest of Cocoon isn't going away, but it isn't going anywhere
> else either.

I didn't say that cocoon wouldn't rewrite avalon stuff to suit our needs 
*and* provide old avalon stuff to suit the legacy needs.

-- 
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message