cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: An entirely new beast
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:00:37 GMT
Upayavira wrote:
> I've been thinking more about Sylvain's proposal and ideas. And would
> like to suggest a way to look at it and see how it fits into the context
> of what we already have.
> Sylvain is proposing something different, something that is likely to be
> almost entirely incompatible with the existing Cocoon. If it is almost
> entirely incompatible, how can we think of it as in some way being a
> _continuation_ of what we already have?
> This, it is _not_ Cocoon 3.0. It is something else.
> Thus, I agree with Sylvain that it should have a new name, but think
> that Raccoon is a bad one, as it is a play on Cocoon and could never
> really be the project's real name. Imagine it, "powered by Apache Cocoon
> Raccoon". Hmm.
> So, what I'd propose is we choose another name, and consider it to be a
> new subproject of Cocoon. A "new, exciting web development framework
> from the people that brought you Apache Cocoon".
> And, the existing Cocoon carries on as long as people want and need it.
> Maybe 3.0 could still be the OSGi version. It may well still bring huge
> benefits to those using the current generation of Cocoon.
> Thoughts? (Other than "oh no, not another naming discussion!")
> Regards, Upayavira
> (P.S. If people do agree, I'd say please refrain from providing possible
> names at the moment. We can discuss that later. For now, let's see if
> people agree with what I am suggesting).

The initial RT was more about "enhancements", i.e. I did not write 
explicitely that the amount of changes required to implement them would 
lead to a large or even complete rewrite, even if I was personally 
convinced of it. I wanted to test the waters and see how people would react.

Now it happened that many people agreed that some deep changes were 
needed, and that what I proposed was going in the right direction. While 
some people consider that a revolution is not the way to go, those that 
do agree on the stated goals of simplification, layering, improved 
consistency, etc, and a common vision is currently being built.

So yes, this is something different. Just like Cocoon 2 was also 
different from Cocoon 1. And it will be incompatible with the current 
Cocoon, even if it uses many of its core principles. So do we need a new 
name or a major version number? As I already said, Cocoon suffers from 
its past as a publication framework, and most of the people that never 
used it still consider it so, when we all know that it's really much 
more than this.

So a new name is a way to say to the masses that it's definitely no more 
"just" a publication framework. Now we should not denigrate the current 
Cocoon nor our history. That was the idea behind "Raccoon": used alone, 
it shows its filiation. But it's right that "Cocoon Racoon" really 
sounds awkward.

So as we don't know yet if it will be "Apache Cocoon 3.0", "Apache 
Cocoon FooBar" or "Apache FooBar", let's give it a code name and see 
along the road how we want to name it. Doing a global search/replace to 
change a root package name is an easy thing.

In the meantime, what about simply "CoNG", for "Cocoon New Generation". 
This name isn't that nice, which will make us want to find something 
else, but solves the immediate need of having a word to designate this 
new thing without fighting about version numbers, separate projects, my 
name is nicer than yours, etc.


Sylvain Wallez                        Anyware Technologies           
Apache Software Foundation Member     Research & Technology Director

View raw message