cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Poetz <>
Subject Re: "Normal" release artifacts
Date Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:42:25 GMT
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> IMHO what's good a downloadable release if ' run' does not 
> work? 

I'm not sure if I understand your concerns here correctly. Maybe I wasn't clear 
about what release artifacts I want to create. Here's the list:


    ... [all the other blocks]



1. and 2. are the releases of our production ready sources (+ docs, +javadocs, 
+binaries). If somebody wants to use Cocoon in one of his projects and doesn't 
want to use Maven 2, Ivy or the Maven Ant tasks, he has to download them and add 
the libraries to his (web) application.
To some extend it is even dangerous to add third-party libraries because this 
might lead to the inclusion of conflicting versions (or at least to unintended 
duplication) just because you add the libraries of several e.g. Cocoon blocks 
that were created at different times.

The second purpose of 1. and 2. is providing a single release artifact of parts 
that belong together (docs, apidocs, sources, binaries). As it was pointed out 
several times  by  you and others, it feels strange to have only Maven 2 release 

3. and 4. are different. 'cocoon-2.2-getting-started' is a suggestion how you 
could organize a Cocoon project that uses blocks and that uses Ant as build 
system. We could also have a  'cocon-2.2-legacy-getting-started' package, that 
uses Cocoon the old way without using the SSF infrastructure.

'cocoon-samples' is the package for that the ' run' proposal applies, IMO.

> One of the points of such release is to make it one stop shop, to 
> get everything up and running in one quick download. 

Is 'cocoon-samples' good enough to be the one-stop-shop that you intend? 
However, I would like add a big warning message, that it is not supposed to be 
used as starting-point for a new Cocoon project.

So let me ask again: Do we need third-party libraries in 1. and 2. or not? (For 
3. and 4. it's clear to me because they wouldn't be useable otherwise.)


Reinhard Pötz                            Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH

Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member, PMC Chair

View raw message