cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giacomo Pati <giac...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r367714 - in /cocoon/trunk/cocoon-template: ./ pom.xml src/ src/main/ src/test/
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:24:27 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:18:08 +0100
> From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
> Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r367714 - in /cocoon/trunk/cocoon-template: ./
>     pom.xml src/ src/main/ src/test/
> 
> Daniel Fagerstrom schrieb:
>> Jorg Heymans skrev:
>>
>>> Giacomo Pati wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Each block should have the same groupId yes. Should we make it
>>> o.a.c.blocks ? (in analogy with [1])
>>
>>
>> Everything will be a block, the core included, in analogy with [2]. So
>> it would be redundant to introduce an extra level in the groupId.
>>
> Hmm, don't we need some "bootstrapping", for example the cocoon servlet
> or the cli main class etc? I think these are not really blocks. Even if
> they are from an implementation pov, they are not from a functionality
> pov. So personally, I would distinguish between blocks and
> "bootstrapping" which could be core.

Should this distinction be on the groupId?
Isn't the groupId just saying that all stuff in it belongs to the same 
project?

- -- 
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDxNzjLNdJvZjjVZARAu59AJsFb2e/fmbg+/AuTfuAMyVq7+VF3ACg6v8V
GNg4i4QG4i+kTFMUofIH5Ik=
=G6Eq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mime
View raw message