cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject Re: 2.2 vs 3.0, or 2.2 then 3.0?
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:11:08 GMT
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>> So, 2.2 = important, and 3.0 = important. Both.
>> We need to avoid discussions, implications, emotions, etc that suggest
>> otherwise.
> Right.  If any of that has gone on, I'm sure its unintentional.  If
> memory serves me correctly, Cocoon 2 was written as a branch, and
> Maintenance was happening on Cocoon 1 for a while.
> There did come a time when work stopped on Cocoon 1, but that was after
> Cocoon 2 was released.
> Basically, new/exciting stuff should go in Cocoon 3, and touch ups to
> Cocoon 2 until Cocoon 3 is ready for prime time.

Yes, generally I agree. But even that makes it sound that the whole 2.x
branch is now in "maintenance mode" which is far from the case. 2.2
should bring those of us using Cocoon significant advantages, and can
continue to be an exciting place to operate for some time to come.

2.2->3.0 is _very_ different to 2.1->2.2. We can expect 2.1 to die
relatively quickly, as apps can be ported with a manageable amount of
effort. That will likely not be the case for 2.2->3.0, so therefore we
can best consider 2.2 and 3.0 to be different products, rather than
versions of the same thing. 2.2 will have a life, much like httpd 1.3
lived long after the release of 2.0.

2.2 needs exciting stuff too. At the same time, adding stax processing
to it might though be a push too far.

On another point - if 3.0 starts as an embedable pipeline engine, surely
we can embed that into our existing 2.2 systems? Thus having hybrid
systems working until such a point as we have migrated everything across
to the new architecture.

Regards, Upayavira

View raw message