cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alfred Nathaniel <>
Subject Re: [vote] Cocoon 3.0
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:23:44 GMT
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 13:19 +0200, Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Following the result of our recent discussion about the future of 
> Corona, I  propose Corona to become Cocoon 3.
> This means that any reference on Corona in source files, package names, 
> artifact ids, group ids or anywhere else will be dropped and the 
> standard Cocoon namespace org.apache.cocoon will be used.
> This majority vote stays open for 72 hours.
> Please cast your votes.
> Here is my +1


I think it is much too early to proclaim a tiny blossom like Corona to
be the heir to the huge thicket called Cocoon.  It gives the wrong
signal to potential new users and will make them shy away.

They will read it as:  "Oh, they are now working on C3.0.  So C2.2 will
be legacy by the time my project is finished.  I may be forced to
migrate to 3.0 with lots of incompatibilities.  Better I use some other
framework for now.  I'll have another look when C3.1 is out."

At least that was my personal reaction when in 1999 I first came across
Cocoon.  I never bothered with C1.7 because C2.0 was already announced
as being a complete rewrite.  Luckily, I passed by a second time in 2002
when C2.1 was in beta state.

Evolution instead of revolution is the key to success here.

C2.2 almost killed us because it was very bold and then took very long
to get out due to the feature creep during the long time it took to get
out.  Porting stuff forward and backward between C2.1 and C2.2 did and
does cost a lot of resources.  I would not want to throw in there yet
another branch.

Before considering C3.0 we should have finished the C2.1 to C2.2
transition period.  And that is not achieved by simply declaring the
C2.1 branch to be closed.  For that I would like to hear more success
stories where people actually migrated non-trivial apps from C2.1 to

I don't want to stand in the way of progress here.  Please carry on with
Corona and stay within the Cocoon context but just don't call to
Cocoon-x.y.  Wasn't the original motivation for Corona to have a
programmable pipeline container which can be used independently of

Maybe stupid question:  Why can't it be a set of experimental blocks in
trunk which may lateron replace the current sitemap processor?

Cheers, Alfred.

View raw message