cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A new name for Corona (take 2)
Date Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:58:31 GMT
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> 
> Cocoon 2.2 already uses cocoon-pipeline-api-1.0.0, 
> cocoon-sitemap-api-1.0.0., etc.
> 
Yes, I know - this complicates things a little bit.

> What concrete name and version number should we use for what we call 
> corona-pipeline now? cocoon-pipeline-1.0.0 or cocoon-pipeline-2.0.0 Or 
> do you propose to split up corona-pipeline and corona-sitemap into 
> api/impl/components like we did in trunk? (NB: I would vote -100 on this 
> because it just doesn't make sense to split up things into api and impl 
> modules when there is most probably no second implementation in sight.)
If there is no need to split,we shouldn't. I think the current corona 
stuff is a pipeline api so we should call it api :) Even if there are 
implementation classes in the package.

> Don't you think that this will blur the lines between Cocoon trunk and 
> the Corona code too much and make it really difficult to understand what 
> modules can be used together?
Hmm, yes, perhaps  - unfortunately we were not good when we introduced 
the current 2.2 module names.

> Additionally we would carve it in stone that Corona becomes the next 
> major version of Cocoon. Not that I'm against this in general, but I'm 
> not sure if it isn't too early for such a decision.
Ok, we have several options: we could use 3.0.0 as version numbers, like 
pipeline-api-3.0.0 etc. This makes clear that this stuff is not usable 
with all the 2.x versions, but obviously this would create a strong 
perception of what would be a Cocoon 3.0.

The other option I see is to use names that 2.2 is currently not using, 
like cocoon-pipe, but I don't think that this is a very clear 
distinguisher.

Seigh, it's not that easy :( But on the other hand using a fantasy name 
doesn't really help either. If we have cocoon-pipeline-api-2.2 and 
corona-pipeline-api-1.0 it's as confusing.

The corona stuff is an evolution of 2.2, so I think we should use 
functional names with version numbers 3.x and above. Hopefully this pays 
off in the long run.

Carsten


-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Mime
View raw message