cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter Hunsberger" <>
Subject Re: Are the component configurations part of our contract?
Date Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:54:24 GMT
On 12/30/06, Carsten Ziegeler <> wrote:
> First of all, 2.2 should be as compatible to 2.1.x as possible. I guess
> we all agree to this. The important question is of course what "as
> compatible as possible" means :)
> We should provide the same set of components as 2.1.x registered with
> the same roles. This will ensure that existing applications should work
> without any code changes.
> As you outlined above, I think we should not strive for requiring that
> even the configuration of these components is the same as in 2.1.x. I
> see no real sense for this. We broke this contract from one 2.1.x to the
> next release already. 2.2 has superior configuration mechanisms and
> features so we should enable them.
> Now, there is one problem though (and I didn't realize this until I read
> Ralphs mail :( ): sitemap components. Today, user have sitemaps with
> component configurations for sitemap components; these should imho work
> without changes, but this requires that we can't change the sitemap
> components from avalon to pojos as I already did with the FileGenerator...
> So, I fear we should have a compatibility set of Avalon components and
> add additional pojo replacements for them one by one. If we add a pojo
> alternative we deprecate the avalon component.

Personally, I'd be willing to convert our code.  As far as I'm
concerned you can get rid of ALL the Avalon compatibility.

It seems like a lot of work to make set of wrappers for backward
compatibility, mark them as deprecated (I guess you can't do this in a
2.1.11 as there isn't any replacement yet) and then finally get rid of
everything.  If I'm going to have to do the conversion anyway, might
as well make a clean break of it.

Peter Hunsberger

View raw message