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: [RT] Cocoonlet
Date Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:51:24 GMT
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>> Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and 
>> the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate 
>> concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
>
> I propose less controversial plan.
>
> As the first step, implement what you call "sitemap blocks", but call 
> them simply "blocks". Own classloader, full classloading isolation, 
> block protocol, exposing direct sitemap components: generators, 
> transformers, serializers.

I'm working on this part and I'm using the names that you all love ;)

> As the second step, implement "components block" *on top of* "sitemap 
> blocks". This introduces second classloader (one is public, to share 
> component interfaces, and one is private, to contain components 
> implementation and libraries), and logic for managing classloader 
> trees. Still call it simply "block".

I and Pier find this a mix of concern of reasons that you can find in 
the archive. If we leave the mix of concern issue for the moment, your 
plan involves *waiting* on the first step. That is for sure 
uncontroversial, waiting on various component management refactorings 
and so on, has been the main activity for most of us, most of the time 
during the years that has past since Stefano's original proposal.

Pier's proposal to actually start *doing* something about the "component 
block" part of the equation right now, was way cooler, IMHO.

/Daniel


Mime
View raw message