Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 64.151.110.219 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com)
Message-ID: <43933CA7.7040402@dslextreme.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:59:51 -0800
From: Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT][long] Cocoon 3.0: the necessary mutation
References: <43908B84.7070909@apache.org> <439129AB.3080404@dslextreme.com>
 <4392C070.8060308@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4392C070.8060308@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> The main point is to have container-independent code as much as 
> possible. Providing multiple container integration may not be a goal 
> per se, but should not be made impossible. The main point is that the 
> pipeline API should be embeddable in other environments.

I have no problem with being container independent, but we should only 
provide one implementation. 

>>
>> By the way - I'm not interested in Cocoon being sexy. I'm interested 
>> in seeing its adoption rate increase, which is a very different thing.
>
>
> You misunderstood what I said (or I used the wrong word). By "sexy" I 
> mean appealing for users, because it makes things easy and fun. If 
> that goal is achieved, adoption rate should increase. Being appealing 
> for managers is a different thing as this more mean being either 
> buzzword compliant or standards (at least defacto ones) compliant.

A Ferrari is sexy.  But it is highly impractical for use in commuting to 
and from work or in transporting goods.  By saying a technology is sexy 
it equates it in my mind with a Ferrari.  It looks great but probably 
doesn't fit really well with the work that needs to be done.

On the other hand, you have a product like IntelliJ Idea.  I wouldn't 
call it sexy. I'd call it smart.  It may not have a really fancy GUI but 
it sure makes me productive. Yes, we should be able to create sexy web 
sites with Cocoon, but Cocoon itself doesn't have to be sexy - just smart.

>
>> As to your sitemap changes, I think what you have in mind is right 
>> on.  It wouldn't bother me if in 3.0 we have only javaflow and 
>> flowscript for those who want to "roll their own" and webflow for 
>> those who prefer a stateful flow.
>>
>> As for your comments on Ajax, I don't know if you read it but you 
>> should take a look at this entry from Carsten's blog 
>> http://www.osoco.org/archives/2005/10/index.html.
>
>
> Honestly, I think Ajax will radically change how we consider portals, 
> not only technically in the way they are implemented, but by the 
> relation users will have with the portal. Just have a look at 
> http://www.google.com/ig to see what I mean.

It's a nice site, but it clearly isn't a portal.  Clicking on links 
causes you to leave the website, which a portal usually wouldn't do. But 
this discussion really has nothing to do with making Cocoon better.

Ralph