cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: [RT] a simple release plan
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:15:58 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> The blocks FUD
> ==============
> I'd like to remind once again that the blocks work doesn't destabilize
> the traditional use of Cocoon the slightest, see
> It just cannot affect that as there are no dependencies from the
> "traditional" parts to the blocks fw whatsoever. Concerning the OSGi
> stuff it is not even part of the build yet.
> So the idea that the block work should hinder anyone to work as usual
> is just plain wrong.
> M10N
> ====
> What hinder people to work as usual is that the M10N isn't finished.
> Now it isn't that hard to use Cocoon anyway as I described in the
> reference above. But of course it would be nicer to be able to use
> Cocoon with some blocks OOTB. If you don't want to take part in
> working on the blocks fw and deployer and is impatient, it wouldn't be
> that hard to write a plugin or an Ant task called from Maven that does
> the file copying that is described in the reference above.
> BTW, I'm quite surprised that you want to go back to the messy Ant
> build from 2.1.x after having argued for building Cocoon with Maven
> for years. Have you lost your faith in Maven?

Same feeling here.

I honestly admit being rather clueless both in OSGification and M10N
(not enough time to invest to climb the learning curve). Now they
obviously seem to be steps forward.

Daniel says that "classical Cocoon" code doesn't depend on the
infrastructure that's being built for real blocks and OSGi. And we seem
pretty close to a full M10N. AFAIU, what's needed to finish it is mainly
the equivalent of "build webapp".

If the above assumptions are true, splitting the code base and going
back to the Ant build seems a huge step backwards, and would relegate
OSGi and M10N to scratchpad status.

That would be bad and would mean that this community is no longer able
to innovate (provocative side note: are we really innovating? [1]).



Sylvain Wallez
Apache Software Foundation Member

View raw message