Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I agree.  The question still remains as to who's itch is 
>> irritating enough.  I also agree that if Cocoon is going to have a 
>> small core, that ultimately will consist of CForms, JXTemplate (or 
>> CTemplate?) and, well, core, then it needs to marked stable ASAP.  As 
>> far as I can tell, much work is being done in the templating areas, 
>> and CForms is hardly inactive.  
> 
> 
> That's not true. cForms is one of the most active developed parts in 
> Cocoon.

I think you misread what I wrote.  :-)

>> To me, it looks like all these things will come together for
>> 2.2, I'm not sure there is enough interest out there to get 2.1 "stable".
>> 
>> It looks like the major contributors here see problems and/or 
>> inconsistancies with the core APIs that they would like fixed for 2.2, 
>> and that seems to be the primary push here.  I see very little talk of 
>> the direction for 2.1, it seems that it is already history in the 
>> minds of many commitors, in many respects.
> 
> A lot of people, including committers, are using it in many projects, 
> mostly 2.1 (I'm probably the only one who is using it based on 2.2). 
> Please read Sylvain's mail 
> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=111826132000272&w=2) 
> which explains very well why we are hesitating to mark the block as stable.

Yeah, I caught that one just after I posted.

> The problem is that the work Sylvain describes doesn't help somebody who 
> is already knowing and using Cocoon. *I* know why there are three 
> different Flowscript APIs and *I* know what I can use of them and what 
> not. *I* also don't have a problem to modify the forms.xconf in the 
> future if they change, etc.
> Somebody who is not that familiar with Cocoon will get lost, sooner or 
> later.

Yes, this is what I understood.  Basically it's going to make life easier in the end but break existing stuff meanwhile.

Ben