cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <>
Subject Re: xsp depending on session-fw?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:30:30 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>So we agreed to cut the dependencies and move the logicsheet to the XSP
>>>block and make the rest of Cocoon XSP free! In fact this reverses the
>>>dependencies so one idea was to make the additional blocks mentioned above.
>>It does ....but TBH:
>>having a some classes or a logicsheet inside a block is only a weak
>>dependency while having all xsp related classes and logicsheet inside
>>the xsp block is a strong compile time dependency.
>>Sorry to bring this up again ...but it's really annoying and does
>>not really help anything IMHO. Creating a block just for those few
>>classes or files feels like bloat to me.
> Yeah, sure - but as we regard XSP as legacy and other blocks like
> session-fw are not legacy,

Isn't session-fw deprecated?

> the dependencies like they are now should
> cause less pain. It seems wrong to me that a non legacy block depends on
> a legacy one; even if only a small part is affected.
> Don't get me wrong, but if we move things back now (and I'm really -1 on
> this), we will have the same discussion again in lets say three months
> and everything is questioned again.
> So, again in general you're right :) but in this case with XSP being
> legacy it's imho better this way. I personally would not create extra
> blocks just for the logicsheets but leave them in the XSP block. But
> *if* XSP users *really* can't live with this extra dependency *than* the
> solution is to create this extra blocks.

I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard 
(compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp dependency, 
which is soft (configuration only).


View raw message