Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 918 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2006 15:05:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2006 15:05:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 18260 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2006 15:05:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 18153 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2006 15:05:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 17999 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2006 15:05:12 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO [127.0.0.1]) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:05:12 -0800 Message-ID: <44182CED.8000905@apache.org> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:04:13 +0100 From: Carsten Ziegeler User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [RT] OSGi based blocks References: <44173F14.4030701@nada.kth.se> <441826A6.7070900@dslextreme.com> <441829E3.8040409@odoko.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <441829E3.8040409@odoko.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Upayavira wrote: > Ralph Goers wrote: > >> Please Daniel, don't take this personally as it isn't really directed at >> you. Part of it is directed at myself as I haven't had any significant >> amount of time to contribute to this work. I guess I'm just wondering if >> I'm the only one who is feeling this way? If so, I'll stop my whining. > > I'd like to look at why you don't have time to contribute. I believe it > is because this 'Cocoon' that is under development is still in early > stages and still quite 'abstract' in the problems it is trying to solve. > That's not a bad thing necessarily, but the consequence is that it feels > as if there's no space for people to innovate on smaller or more > immediate issues because we're all waiting for this 'big thing'. > > If the OSGi blocks stuff is so orthogonal to Cocoon, why don't we: > * break it off into a separate development path, no longer consider it > 'trunk', > * move 2.1.X into trunk > * Start innovating on 2.1.x again > * Wrap the OSGi blocks system around this new trunk as and when it is > a bit better developed. > > Personally, the long waiting for this blocks system is having very > unfortunate effects on our community. We need to change that. Take the > development of blocks off the front stage, and let it happen quietly > somewhere until there's something clear for us to see and play with, > rather than preventing people from being able to innovate because they > can't understand the status of trunk and don't have time/resources to > invest in working it out and keeping up. > > That means that all that are left are those of us that have 'personal > spare time'. The rest of us, who do all of our Cocoon work as a part of > our livelihoods, can't find time to contribute to Cocoon because we > can't justify it - it is just too hard to work out where to contribute. > > And 'just waiting' is dangerous, as each moment some of our valuable > resource wanders away. > I personally would love to have the new configuration features of 2.2 in 2.1.x, like the includes for xconf and properties. This alone is a big step forward. Unfortunately this is tight to many other changes like the Spring based container (which I also would like to have *today*). So perhaps your suggestion, starting anew with 2.1.x as trunk is a good way to move on. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/