cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ugo Cei <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)
Date Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:40:08 GMT
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 08:30, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:

> I think it will be a question of doing it. If Ugo presents a 
> functional prototyp of Spring that supports Real Blocks and which can 
> be made backwards compatible to 2.1 sitemaps and flowscripts I 
> wouldn't have arguments against it :-)

My aim is to implement a functional protoptype that supports sitemaps 
and flowscripts. Implementing Real Blocks is the long-range target but 
don't expect me to reach it by myself :-).

> Some words to the ButterflyManifesto: IMHO it has a clear focus on 
> "technical excellence". The point missing (IMHO) is that we have a 
> large user base with many, many applications running on Cocoon 2.x. It 
> is very important to make their move to Cocoon NG as simple as 
> possible so that they don't have to redo all the work. I think this 
> means at least support for Sitemaps and Flowscripts and support for 
> existing components in a legacy mode.
>
> (I know repeating this over and over again is boring but sometimes I 
> have the feeling that this is forgotten ...)

It's not missing, it's explicitly set aside (1.4.4. Don't be dragged 
down by backward compatibility). Now, I agree that some migration path 
will have to be provided and the easier the better. But we shouldn't 
let these considerations limit too much our creativity. All of this is 
very very IMHO of course and the actual degree of backward 
compatibility will have do be discussed in depth.

One thing that I'd like to see go away (or be supported only in 
"legacy" mode) is the sitemap syntax. I'm fed up with pointy brackets, 
can't we have less clutter? ;-)

	Ugo

-- 
Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/

Mime
View raw message