cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <>
Subject Re: [vote] Cocoon 3.0
Date Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:15:45 GMT
Alfred Nathaniel wrote:
> 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
> -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.  

That doesn't make sense. Then this user would have to migrate from the 
'other framework' sometime which is most probably more difficult.

> 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.

There is no need to port things between 2.x and Corona - there is only a 
very minimal overlap.

> 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
> C2.2.

sure, I'd like to hear them too.

> 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.  

After 25 days of discussion this was the best solution we found. People 
were very unhappy with the use of any codename. And meanwhile I think we 
are all tired of the name finding game.

Cocoon 3 will be announced as alpha software. We will add warning 
messages to all release artifacts and on the homepage that the code is 
experimental and contracts can change from patch releases. We will also 
state clearly that the focus of Cocoon 3 is much smaller (small pipeline 
API & RESTful webservices) and that, thanks to the servlet-service 
framework, it can be run very easily in parallel with Cocoon 2.2

> Wasn't the original motivation for Corona to have a
> programmable pipeline container which can be used independently of
> Cocoon?

The original motivation was that Cocoon 2.x code is one of the most 
difficult pieces of software that I've ever seen. We tried to refactor 
it (see 'Micro-Cocoon' in the whiteboard) but found out that this is 
everything else than simple. While doing this I wondered wow many people 
do really understand how the environment handling exactly works and can 
do changes without a long trial and error period?

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

It's not only the sitemap processor. Corona also has different contracts 
at pipeline and pipeline component level.

Reinhard Pötz                           Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH

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

View raw message