cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [RT] Some notes about the "Real Blocks" issue
Date Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:43:39 GMT
Daniel,

I didn't quote everything in your post in the interest of space, but I 
agree with everything in it.  Frankly, I'd be happy if every block had 
it's own equivalent to cocoon.xconf that could be loaded along with the 
block.  If any wiring is needed, it should be between the Cocoon core 
and the block as a whole, not the components in it.  Also, creating an 
XML schema to validate the configuration of a block seems a lot less 
problematic then trying to create a schema for cocoon.xconf as a whole.

I suppose I have to agree with Stefano regarding the container.  I think 
Cocoon needs its own, although not necessarily for the same reasons.  
Mainly because it gives the Cocoon community the flexibility to modify 
and enhance the container to suit the needs of Cocoon.  I'll admit that 
I haven't looked at the work he has done, so I can't comment on the 
specific implementation.

Ralph

Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:

> I also took a look at Butterfly's applicationContext.xml and did some 
> reading about Spring. I would say that the Spring configuration file 
> looks straight forward from a component developer point of view. But 
> for a Cocoon application developer, possibly without detailed 
> knowledge about the internals of the components and of Cocoon and 
> possibly not even beeing a Java programmer, the Spring configuration 
> file will be much harder to understand and modify.
>
>
> /Daniel
>
>


Mime
View raw message