forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
Date Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:42:41 GMT
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Ross Gardler escribió:
> BTW, what have relational database in 
> common with forrest? Are we discussing about cocoon or forrest goals? 
> Please explain because it is not clear to me.

We are talking about Forrest goals. The goals of Forrest are to 
integrate content from many different sources and present them in a 
uniform way.

One of those sources could be a relational database.

>> So, then it can be argued that we should be contributing to Cocoon and 
>> helping resolve the fourth complexity. That may be the outcome of this 
>> RT, it may not.
> For the records, the cocoon community *recommended* all related projects 
> (including forrest) to stay with 2.1 *until* 2.2 get stabilized. This is 
> what lenya, hippo and daisy did and I did not see this kind of crisis 
> there. Hence is this our own fault?

That depends on what the problem is....

If the problem is that the 2.2 branch of Cocoon is in a state of flux 
and difficult to work with then the answer is certainly, yes it is our 
own fault. Hence my continual recomendation that the Forrest devs get 
involved with Cocoon and help stabalize it.

If the problem is that Cocoon is not a suitable framework for our simple 
use case of transforming an input source to an output source via some 
intermediate format then the answer still yes. We choose to use this 

The question is therefore "should forrest continue to use Cocoon or 
should we get active in Cocoon development". That is the purpose of this RT.

I am of the opinion that we should not be using Cocoon in the core. One 
of the great ideas in this RT, from David, is to have a clean Forrest 
core that allows plugins (both input and output) to be built with 
whatever technology is appropriate to the use case. This could be Cocoon.

>> Have you ever dived in to the implementation and tried to do anything 
>> useful in there?
> Why is this so important? Is this forrest business?

It is Forrest business because we are not attracting developers. I 
assert elsewhere in this thread that one reason is because Cocoon is too 
complex a beast for most users simple use cases.

>> The reason I failed (and I guess the same for you) is that the code is 
>> just so complex and jumbled that it's next to impossible to find ones 
>> way around once one gets past the API.
> Why you did not asked for help on the cocoon list. I am sure there are 
> some people willing to help. Just because we were unable to implement a 
> better cache mechanism, it does not mean something is complex.

Tim did work with the Cocoon community on this, see the Cocoon archives.

>>>  My point is that newcomers are
>>> going to find it difficult to deal with any framework that attempts to
>>> achieve anything beyond the simplistic.
>> Yes, but if the framework is designed to do one job (publishing in our 
>> case) then it is simpler to understand than if it is designed to do 
>> every job (as with Cocoon).
> There is no need to use every cocoon block.

We don't, we have already stripped it down as far as it will go, at 
least that is what I am led to believe. Many of the Cocoon proposals 
could potnetially solve many of the problems I highlight, but they are 
not moving forward at a pace that is needed by Forrest.

So, we either have to work on Cocoon and realise those objectives or we 
have to recognise that we don't actually need Cocoon and get on with 
building a Forrest that customers will want to use.

This is an RT, I'm throwing around radical ideas so we can consider what 
actions to take. I am making no recomendations at this time.

>> If we reject this RT based on this argument then I want to see Forrest 
>> developers helping Cocoon sort this out rather than standing by 
>> waiting for it to happen.
> As I told initially, there was a bad decision to start using 2.2 too 
> early. And this is the cause of all this problems. 

Rubbish. Cocoon 2.1.9 is even less advanced with respect to the 
flexability of blocks etc. Using 2.1.9 would not make Cocoon simpler nor 
would it make our core smaller. These are th two issues we have with 
Forrest that are, in my opinion, preventing people adopting it.

> I think it is not a 
> cocoon fault after all, as I told, the cocoon community gave and advise 
> that was reject by forrest. It is our own "mea culpa".

This is an examination of whether Forrest needs Cocoon not a witchhunt 
trying to lay blame. Cocoon is a fantastic *web* framework and nowhere 
have I said otherwise. I am only questioning whether Forrest should be 
built on a *web* framework at all.


View raw message