Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
In-Reply-To: <OF4C9BFA89.B6E79E10-ONC1256E79.0062928E@sundn.de>
References: <OF4C9BFA89.B6E79E10-ONC1256E79.0062928E@sundn.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Message-Id: <77BAD9EA-91DA-11D8-B9D8-000A95AF004E@codeconsult.ch>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch>
Subject: Re: Continue Development of 2.1.x
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:20:50 +0200
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org

Le 17 avr. 04, =E0 20:06, Carsten Ziegeler a =E9crit :

> ...So, I would suggest that we change our development plan a little
> bit and consider adding those features to our 2.1.x code base
> that are independent from blocks, like e.g. the virtual sitemap
> components etc. Of course we should take care that the
> changes are not incompatible (apart from the one below :) )....

+1 from here as well.

IMO many people have no urgent need for a new container or Real Blocks,=20=

so I agree that it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on 2.1 as the=20
"workhorse" version and not neglect it while working on the 2.2 (or=20
whatever version number) "experimental" stuff.

> ...In addition I would like to "port back" the changes I made to
> the environment handling in 2.2 to 2.1.x as they improve the
> performance and clean up some hacks (not all :( ) we have in
> the code. And this would also make Leo's wish regarding
> the CocoonComponentManager easier. Unfortunately these changes
> are not 100% compatible: the o.a.c.Processor and the=20
> o.a.c.e.Environment
> interfaces have to change for this. But this shouldn't effect
> users, so it should be ok to change it.
> Is this ok?

+1

-Bertrand