cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: [RT] Migrating to Fortress
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:42:04 GMT
I forgot that if we move to Fortress, we don't need selectors anymore.

Carsten 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziegeler@s-und-n.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:16 AM
> To: Cocoon-Dev
> Subject: [RT] Migrating to Fortress
> 
> I think its time to think again about migrating to Fortress for 2.2.
> 
> By migrating to Fortress I just mean using Fortress as an ECM 
> replacement.
> So without using meta-data etc. Fortress is able to use the 
> ECM configuration, so from the user pov there shouldn't be a 
> difference.
> 
> So, why migrating at all? Fortress has some benefits over 
> ECM. I think Berin mentioned an improved pooling code etc. We 
> could use setter and constructor injection if we want etc.
> In addition, the development of Fortress will continue over 
> at Excalibur, so if something interesting will happen there 
> we can benefit from it.
> 
> But my main point currently is the use of own lifecycle 
> interfaces. It seems that perhaps we will someday move away 
> from the Avalon based world (let's not discuss this here if 
> we will or wont, please!). Even if that will not happen, we 
> will need additional core functionality that is not available 
> in Avalon (a different lookup etc.).
> With Fortress we can add our own marker interface into the 
> component lifecycle and for example introduce a (very silly 
> example!) CocoonLogEnabled interface. If a component 
> implements this, it gets the Cocoon logger (this is just an example!)
> 
> If we need this functionality for blocks in Cocoon 2.3 (or 
> whatever version), we could start adding the interfaces (when 
> they are solid) to Cocoon 2.2.x and people can start 
> migrating their components slowly. So, when the real blocks 
> are out, its much easier to migrate the code (if required) as 
> this has already happened (for parts).
> 
> There shouldn't be any compatibility problems. The only thing 
> I'm not so sure about is XSP where ComponentHandlers are 
> used. But I'm sure we will find a solution for that as well.
> 
> Carsten 
> 
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Open Source Group, S&N AG
> http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message