Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=UGnpo7SxuNAfgXDBqut5PWc6XCvLpOP3Vy2KCmqa+YhTtL2cS/OmRyoD+LSPpOpr2CMTISvklHOzEJuydciDl47wyWUad9Z2As6ROyA2gqrV5JoEbCzU7WVtwK/cQQspZdYOXoUzU9X0UjfbLKfAtCXRaed369DU/D+Mlg8dcvw=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060104085502.52218.qmail@web26812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:55:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Reinhard Poetz <reinhard_poetz@yahoo.de>
Subject: The Apple-Intel analogy
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <43BB82F8.5000808@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--- Sylvain Wallez <sylvain@apache.org> schrieb:
> Giacomo Pati wrote:
> > If you mean Spring as the "rock-solid container
> used by thousands of 
> > people" than tell me why are you using a Mac while
> "ten-thousands of 
> > people use a IBM ThinkPad" ;-)
> 
> A very interesting comparison: Apple is currently
> moving to Intel CPUs!! 
> Why so? Because PowerPC is a dead end for their
> market, as IBM makes no 
> effort to produce good laptop CPUs. So Apple changes
> the engine, without 
> changing what's unique to them.
> 
> This is exactly the same for Cocoon: Avalon is dead,
> and we all agree on 
> this. So what's the point of adding dependency
> injection features to 
> Avalon? It's like adding Intel instructions to a
> PowerPC to prepare 
> migration. That's nonsense: you end up with a clumsy
> solution that 
> smells like a DI container but is not, and provides
> a mix of injection, 
> lifecycle interfaces and service lookup.
> Furthermore, it doesn't really 
> encourage people to move away from Avalon as its
> features are still 
> available to all components.

I think the Apple move to Intel processors is a good
example. Apple is changing its fundaments but the
building above, the operating systems, remains the
same and all your applications won't stop to work. The
average user won't even notice that the processor has
changed.

IMO Cocoon should go the same way. The recent thread
about a complete rewrite of Cocoon *really* scares me
and a lot of people I've talked to as it will break
compatibility for sure.

If I take Marc's proposal as some kind of common
understanding within the community on where we want to
go, I still fail to see why the revolution is
necessary. I also consider it as dangerous as it might
lead to fractions within the community and we start
again to split our limited time that we can dedicate
to the devleopment of Cocoon into two projects for
years (again).

--
Reinhard


___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de