cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: [RT] The environment abstraction, part II
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:55:06 GMT
Upayavira wrote:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>   
>> Carsten Ziegeler skrev:
>>     
...
>>> First, I'm still not sure if this should go into the current 2.2 code
>>> base, but apart from that I now think we should even be more radical in
>>> this area and remove the whole environment abstraction completly and
>>> make Cocoon a web framework. Period.
>>>       
>> Agree, but as people (you included) had valid reasons for not going that
>> far in 2.2, I suggest something less radical this time, as I want to get
>> rid of the problem of calling servlets from within Cocoon already in 2.2.
>>     
>
> I am starting to change my mind about this in regard to 2.2. 2.2 is
> changing as a concept. It was previously just a small step up from 2.1,
> in which case a significant change in interface would not have been
> appropriate. However, particularly the maven build, but also a lot of
> the other stuff that is going on, is leading to some quite substantial
> improvements.
It starts to look like a 3.0 rather than a 2.2 and my personal goal is 
to implement the whole blocks design including OSGi. OTH I try to not 
hinder the possibility for a 2.2 release, given that someone is prepared 
to spearhead it.
>  More particularly Daniel's proposals to do with using
> servlet interfaces for block controllers would make it possible to
> implement some (or even all) of Sylvain's Cocoon 3.0 ideas within this
> framework.
>   
That is the goal :)
> If this is the case, then it would seem timely to improve these
> interfaces now, as 2.2 given the greater flexibility could become _the_
> future Cocoon, and we may miss the boat if we don't make this change now.
>   
Yes, I feel some urgency. With enough focus and dedication on 
refactoring Cocoon and finish the blocks Cocoon can be the Rich Server 
Platform (http://www.infonoia.com/en/content.jsp?d=inf.05.07). And 
regain its momentum. Focusing on 2.2 seem more like losing valuable time 
for me.

But that is IMHO, if enough people are prepared to make a 2.2 happen, I 
will of course join in that work.
>>> Now, we have currently two other environments: cli and portlets. A
>>> portlet is a web application, so there won't be any problem. And for
>>> the CLI we can come up with some kind of HttpClient that internally
>>> starts Jetty etc.
>>>       
>> Yes. For CLI an alternative is to have a minimal servlet container as
>> part of the CLI. Maybe its possible to use Jetty in that way without
>> needing to go over a socket?
>>     
> Why a servlet container? Or do you mean simple implementation of the
> servlet interfaces? That would be what we would need. Something to set
> up request and response and call the servlet's service() method.
>   
I mean a simple implementation of the servlet interfaces as you suggest.

I haven't studied the CLI implementation in any detail, what is your 
opinion about letting it work on the servlet interfaces rather than at 
the Processor level. What consequences will it have?

/Daniel


Mime
View raw message