cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <>
Subject Re: CoWarp (was Re: svn commit: r232855...)
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:07:37 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:


> Hmm... chicken and egg. How can one create a community around a one 
> man show hosted as Furthermore, can there be a community 
> around a bunch of interface and their default implementations?

There can at least be community involvement. You are of course allready 
working on that by discussing it on the list.You could take it further 
by writting an RT about why you consider authentication being a core 
concern for Cocoon (something that at least I probbaly would agree 
about), how CoWarp solves it and why that is a good approach.

> Not talking about the quality of the code, but about the interest 
> these interfaces can generate, especially when they're so simple that 
> they can already can be considered as "finished".


>> And I think currently we have way too many blocks and adding another one
>> makes Cocoon even complexer. It seems everyone who has a good idea just
>> adds another block (with no or minimal community). Just adding a jar
>> dependency is much simpler from the complexity point of view.
> It's not really here about adding a new block, but about providing a 
> simple and unified way of solving a common problem in Cocoon, which 
> the current pipeline-based auth-framework doesn't seem to solve (I 
> personally never used it).
> The interfaces could be in core, along with the basic trivial 
> implementations, and blocks could provide specialized implementations 
> (e.g. JDBC, LDAP, JCR, etc).

Implementig the interfaces is also a kind of community involvement. And 
by implementing them we migth get ideas about how to improve the 
interfaces which would be simplified by making them part of Cocoon.

                        --- o0o ---

Thinking further about it, I completely agree about that we have to many 
blocks rigth now. But that is not an argument against adding more, 
rather about removing or at least make optional, blocks that lacks 
community support. You might remember

We could add more blocks, but it has to be based on community interest 
or involvement, not like some of the abandoned one man shows from our past.


View raw message