Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <46C2C9DA.1000103@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:39:38 +0200
From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Expression Block
References: <46C298B7.7090109@apache.org> <46C2B119.5060503@apache.org>
 <46C2B6FF.1030705@apache.org> <46C2C5E7.6010900@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <46C2C5E7.6010900@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
> I still have to disagree. It's also important from user's perspective
> because block is something that has structure of block (contains folders
> src/main/resources/META-INF and src/main/resources/COB-INF) and can be
> used as block.
> Core module is just piece of code that user is going to use without any
> consideration. Usually, user is not going to choose which core modules
> to use but she is going to choose blocks usable for developed application.
:) Okay, I see your point and you're most propably right - although we
might have blocks that don't have COB-INF etc. and I might not want to
use all core modules. So we should be prepared to make them optional
where possible, e.g. if I don't want to have javascript support for the
expression language stuff etc.

> Full name is "cocoon-expression-language-*" so module's name consists of
> segments "expression" and "language".
Ah, ok, I see, I would go with "el" for the package name then :) In
general you are right that its better to use all segments but I guess
that there will be exceptions to this rule :) So, best would be to have
module names which consist of just one single name.

Carsten


-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org