Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
Damn, I skipped this whole thread because I was overly
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
Damn, I skipped this whole thread
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
snip/
By using the Eclipse kernel, Cocoon could be the first RSP, Rich
Server Platform.
WDYT?
Sylvain
[1] http://www.eclipsefaq.org/chris/faq/faq-list.html
Cool! But not that you took my forthcomming RT ;)
Ooops, sorry :-)
I have also been
Actually, the idea of OSGi has been running in my head for a long
time. I discovered OSGi when working on the embedded Cocoon, as we had
to make an OSGi bundle with it so that it can be added to an
OSGi-powered system in a car. OSGi is widely used in embedded systems,
especially automotive
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 27 avr. 05, à 16:41, Daniel Fagerstrom a écrit :
...Then we need a name for sitemap blocks. I propose to call them
cocoonlets...
Frankly, I don't like the name - most of these -let names sound bad
to me.
But I don't think the names
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial plan.
As the first step,
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and the
component aspect of the original block proposal as separate concerns and
(at least initially) solve them separately. So we will have component
blocks and sitemap blocks. IMO we need a better terminology. In a
previous mail
Of course, we have a lot invested in the brand block. So this question
requires carefull consideration. But I don't think the names component
block and sitemap block are any good. They are clumsy and will
confuse people.
TBH: to me they sounds less confusing and more to the point
than
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
Damn, I skipped this whole thread because I was overly swamped, but I
definitely
Le 27 avr. 05, à 16:41, Daniel Fagerstrom a écrit :
...Then we need a name for sitemap blocks. I propose to call them
cocoonlets...
Frankly, I don't like the name - most of these -let names sound bad
to me.
But I don't think the names component block and sitemap block
are any good...
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
Damn, I skipped this whole thread because I was overly
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 27 avr. 05, à 16:41, Daniel Fagerstrom a écrit :
...Then we need a name for sitemap blocks. I propose to call them
cocoonlets...
Frankly, I don't like the name - most of these -let names sound bad
to me.
But I don't think the names component block and sitemap
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and the
component aspect of the original block proposal as separate concerns and
(at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial plan.
As the first step, implement what you call
On Apr 27, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial plan.
As the first step,
17 matches
Mail list logo
