cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Noels <>
Subject Re: Cocoon is not gump!
Date Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:01:18 GMT
On 29 Jun 2004, at 23:53, Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> In this kind of situation, there is a very heavy process set up to 
> ensure that *all* source code is available, as long as *all* tools and 
> operating systems required to build and run the software. Plus a huge 
> amount of design and test documents to allow people to dive in years 
> after the original development team has disappeared.

One might wonder whether this isn't something where 
consultants/integrators get their money from. If preservation and/or 
fall-back is what your customer expects, would that be something he's 
going to pay for? I'm talking about the preservation aspect here: if we 
provided sources, how long could the Cocoon community be expected to 
keep them? At what cost?

I tend to understand Ralph's point, but OTOH I think providing the 
build targets to create source jars should be sufficient, and that the 
actual assembly work should be at the third party's deliberation. For 
third-party, unreleased or patched libs, a coherent naming scheme and offloading procedure should suffice.

Steven Noels                  
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML            An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at  
stevenn at                stevenn at

View raw message