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: <42126FA3.7030707@nada.kth.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:54:43 +0100
From: Daniel Fagerstrom <danielf@nada.kth.se>
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> <4211A4D4.7020307@apache.org>
 <4211F9C8.1080507@nada.kth.se> <421211F5.2070803@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <421211F5.2070803@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> 
>> Sometimes I think that "real blocks"
>>
>>  [...] is another instance of something that is becoming an anti-pattern:
>>  "stating the solution before stating the problem".
> 
> This is true. I agree completely with that, in fact, the observation 
> came after deep and long thinking sbout exactly how the real block 
> design was so complete yet so far from current needs that nobody (not 
> even myself) was willing to sit down and spend the time/effort to 
> implement it.

I think the completness was part of the problem, it felt like everything 
was needed to make it usefull. And that made every step on the way 
towards the real block feeling futile compared to the grandness of the 
vision.

Also it didn't just solve the problem that was immediatly at hand i.e. 
the complexty of Cocoon and the problem to implement external blocks. 
But also a number of expected problem that would be the result of 
starting with something simpler.

Somewhere there the threshold to actually doing something become to 
high. I really liked the idea but I hoped that some briliant individual 
with a lot of energy and time should do the actual work.

> Real blocks are still very avalonish in that sense: they were designed 
> for elegance rather than optimization of effort.

Sometimes grand visions inspires people to do fantastic things, 
sometimes they don't. Its quite hard to know beforehand.

> that's why I've tried to vote +1 to any incremental change, even if 
> suboptimal, instead of beating the "thou shall have real block" dead horse.

I have seen and appricaiated that.

> But sometimes I can't help to think about how much cooler coocon would 
> be with them ;-)

We should get there, and like Reinhard I'm thinking that we they not are 
that far away. But its important that we remind ourselves about why we 
need them and find incremental steps that delivers immediate value. And 
I think its ok to create itches to scratch on the way that triggers 
community dynamics rather than trying to solve all possible problems 
upfront.

To be more concrete I think that moving the blocks out of core is an 
important step that will both give value in itself and that will trigger 
  community dynamics in a good way. Also I think that implementing the 
VPCs is such a step as it both give us something really usefull, and 
requires that we refactor the infrastructure in a way that is an 
important step towards real blocks.

/Daniel