Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4210B6F7.5080404@dslextreme.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:34:31 -0800
From: Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Moving blocks out of the core
References: <421079EF.7080204@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <421079EF.7080204@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

> The more I think about it, I come to the conclusion that moving the 
> blocks out of the core seems to be a good way to procede.
> (Moving files with SVN is easy and the history etc. is preserved).
> (Of course we should only move things for 2.2 - 2.1.x should be left 
> untouched)
>
> Now one benefit of course is that our core gets smaller, but that's 
> not really a reason to move things.
>
What exactly does this mean?  That the cocoon download does not contain 
any blocks?  If users have to now selectively download blocks in 
addition to the cocoon core I think you'll just end up with a bunch of 
frustrated users.  If, on the other hand, the core consisted of little 
more than what is needed to build the webapp and downloaded all the jars 
for the blocks then you'd have something.

Ralph