cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: sitemap, jx and flow design (was: servicemanager and jxtg)
Date Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:02:11 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: 

<snip/>

>> Seem to me like we have switched opinion with each other ;)
>>
>> You know, over the last few years I have written tons of RTs 
>> describing more or less cool pipeline constructions for simplifying 
>> webapp development. And you have after more or less convincing 
>> argumentation stated: "thou shall use flow" and concluded with your 
>> obligatory -1.
>>
>> My current interest is polishing the basic building blocks for 
>> building webapps: JXTG, flow, CForms and maybe some more stuff so 
>> that it becomes as coherent and "smooth" as possible and in some 
>> cases less monolithic.
>>
>> Having such a gool I am more interested in seeing the usual "I don't 
>> want to use flow because of X" for something that seem close to the 
>> concern area for flow, as a good reason for discussing how to polish 
>> flow so that it fullfills its task better.
>>
>> Maybe handling data types other than strings; DOM, Java Beans, SQL 
>> rowsets etc in the sitemap is an excelent idea. But my gut feeling, 
>> after having spend considerable time thinking about building webapps 
>> with sitemap constructions, is that it doesn't stop there, we need 
>> some other sitemap constructions to make it really useful. And as 
>> said I feel more for polishing the flowscript way, than being part of 
>> developing alternative solutions. But you don't need my blessing for 
>> discussing and developing such things if you feel a need for it.
>
>
> My girlfriend tells me that sometimes it seems like I argue for the 
> sake of arguing.., that I would take the other side no matter what... 
> and that in a single conversation I might argue about why something is 
> black and then argue about the same thing is white once I change the 
> other person's opinion.

I could have guesed that, and I'm sory to say, you are severely 
mistaken, and so are your girlfriend ... its green.

> I know I do that... and the reason why I do that is that I force 
> people to convince themselves before convincing me.

And now you are trying to convice yourself that it has a higher goal 
than just the fun of arguing ;) Anyway it gets us more viewers, people 
just love to hate soap operas.

> There is no such thing as being right or wrong.... especially if we 
> don't understand what we really want in the first place.

A professor in law once told me: The important thing is not being right, 
the important thing is getting right.

By sharing a common vision we as a community can "getting right", by 
diffusing our energy in bikesheding and developing half baked solutions 
within various paradigms ... You know, there might be other beasts in 
the jungle who are lean and mean and eager to take our niche.

A common vision is about things we all can stand up and speak proudly 
about: "Modern Cocoon is about the power trio", "real blocks", "SoC".

> I think that as long as cocoon grows incrementally and organically, 
> there is no problem in any approach and that usage will tell us if 
> something was a good idea or a bad one.

I agree with that, but we also need to prune the bad ideas. Todays life 
is not only shaped by incremental development but also by catastrophes 
and mass extermination.

> So, to cut it short: it really doesn't matter what you are saying but 
> *how much you are willing to suffer to get it across* :-)

I'm prepared to take the pain of persistently seeing where our vision 
leads us.

> More than anything, I act as a filter. A pain in your butt. I play 
> death in a design chess game... where the community is what wins.

Or get overtaken by another community ;)

> So, it doesn't really matter what you do or propose, but how and how 
> open is your mind when you do that. The sofware result will be shaped 
> by reality and usage anyway,

And reality and usage will be influenced by powerfull ideas, if we take 
the pain to make them real.

> and it will never be perfect because perfection is never in living 
> things (and open developped software is a living organism) if not in 
> their own existance.

It will not be perfect, but the strive for perfectness is a powerfull 
source for keeping the entropy outside our system. Unfortunally it might 
be an even stronger force for keeping us "bikeshedding" ;)

/Daniel


Mime
View raw message