Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63833 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2005 11:01:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Apr 2005 11:01:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 25683 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2005 11:01:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 25628 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2005 11:01:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 25609 invoked by uid 99); 14 Apr 2005 11:01:31 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:01:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 63784 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2005 11:01:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2005 11:01:29 -0000 Message-ID: <425E4DC8.3010100@apache.org> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:02:32 +0200 From: Carsten Ziegeler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: xsp depending on session-fw? References: <425D7E37.60106@apache.org> <425D8236.6050501@apache.org> <425D85CD.9040808@reverycodes.com> <425D9104.9060802@apache.org> <425E1E31.8050301@apache.org> <425E36A6.9070702@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <425E36A6.9070702@apache.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: 127.0.0.1 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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, 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. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/