cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ugo Cei <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Some notes about the "Real Blocks" issue
Date Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:49:47 GMT
Il giorno 13/ott/04, alle 23:23, Vadim Gritsenko ha scritto:

>  * Why new type of container is needed;
>    (I suppose: because some things are broken)
>  * What's broken in ECM;

Quoting Stefano:

"I've been helping Pier write a block-like container for his employer  
and
found out that no matter how hard we try, the Avalon interfaces cannot
allow to implement Cocoon Blocks the way we designed them."

<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108004833707209&w=2>

>  * Why it can't be fixed in Fortress;

It might be fixed, maybe. My impression, however, is that Avalon with  
Fortress/Merlin/Metro/Magic/Excalibur/Kingarthur/Lancelot/Guinevere/ 
Whatever is quickly fading into irrelevance. I was subscribed to the  
Excalibur mailing lists until a couple of days ago. There was almost  
nothing there besides talk about hot to fix the problems with Gump. I  
unsubscribed from Avalon even earlier.

I need a framework which provides today lots of prepackaged modules  
helping with persistence, transactions, messaging, management (in the  
JMX sense). In two words: enterprise services. I don't see anything  
better than Spring it this respect.

[I just realized I promised earlier not to fall into a  
container-religion-war type of argument, and I didn't mantain the  
promise, but since you asked a direct question...]

>  * Why Avalon compatibility can't be achived with new
>    container (so that you need second one in parallel).

May be. I just thought it might have been easier that way. No  
compatibility layer to write. if you have legacy components just run  
them in the legacy container, which is not much more than ECM, and we  
already have that. This is however an implementation decision and it is  
IMHO better to start doing it one way or the other and see which one is  
better. I'm all for agile, test-driven development, so what I would do  
is write some tests, implement the simplest thing that might possibly  
work and refactor.

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

Mime
View raw message