Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22418 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2004 13:14:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Oct 2004 13:14:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 83437 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2004 13:14:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 83272 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2004 13:14:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 83172 invoked by uid 99); 18 Oct 2004 13:14:02 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [84.96.21.10] (HELO mail.anyware-tech.com) (84.96.21.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:14:00 -0700 Received: from [10.0.0.27] (unknown [10.0.0.27]) by mail.anyware-tech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14965EB98 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:13:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4173C18C.8020206@apache.org> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:13:48 +0200 From: Sylvain Wallez Organization: Anyware Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [RT] Building ECM++ for 2.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >The following idea came to my mind during the weekend. All the >recent discussions about a new core/container etc. show that >a possible future version of Cocoon will have a different >component handling than we have now. > >One major concern for me is compatibility. It would be bad >if someone had to rewrite his complete application just to >update from one version of Cocoon to another. I guess we >all agree on this. Now reaching this goal can be done >from two sides: >a) The new version can have a compatibility layer. >b) We can provide a smooth transition from version to version. > >It would be ideal if we would have both. But with a compatibility >layer people tend to just use it without migrating their app. > > As long as the compatibility layer remains, I don't see what invites people to migrate to new features. Is it just because new features will be available? Then having them because of an updated old container or because of a newer one with a legacy layer isn't very different in this regard, except that new features are readily available in the second case. That's why I'm in favor of adding a legacy layer to something new. I started the avalonization of Spring a few hours ago and the more I dig, the more the technical issues I felt I would hit disappear one after the other. I have to stop for now as I have some urgent work to do for tomorrow (a new training), but that's definitely the way I want to go instead of adding new features on top of an old thing. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }