Well, I also have a pretty strong opinion about the remark you make now.
Let's first make the distinction between - innovators (people who are always trying to improve the way of working themselves --> E.g. Reinhard Poetz who started C3) - early adapters (people who see clear benefits in innovative technologies .. e.g. early committers / users like Simone Tripodi) - reasonable adapters (people who upgrade their software after major stable releases) - slow adapters (people who are satisfied with current way of working and wait till they are forced to upgrade) Point is... there are always costs involved. If you created lots of C2.1.x apps and you want to start using the latest and greatest... you have 2 choices. Either you start creating NEW apps using the latest technology and leave the existing ones alone --> Low adaptation cost Or you decide to rewrite/upgrade your existing apps --> higher adaptation cost Sometimes the upgrade path is hard to sell to your customer if the upgrade does not provide immediate visible benefits. But let's consider you are a slow adapter and you get forced to upgrade at some point. You have put great amounts of effort in getting those Cforms working and all logic is contained in flowscript (both are deprecated in C3). Now what do you think the cost of sticking with the old technology is? It's even much higher. I think for most developers the easiest approach would be to follow that of a reasonable adapter. It balances the Costs involved in a safer way. Robby -----Original Message----- From: m...@digikartta.net [mailto:m...@digikartta.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:52 AM To: users@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Forms and maps Torsten, I understand your points. Still, it depends on what are trying to achieve, how much do you have time for it and what are your skills and competence. Also, from the point of the business view, there is a concept of opportunity costs. It may be reasonable to go on with the old framework, even if the newer one would be much better. On the other hand, starting with the old one isn't smart. So suggestion to start with (or wait for) the stable C3 can be very wise decision. - mika - On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:37:59 +0200, Thorsten Scherler <scher...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/18/2012 07:58 AM, m...@digikartta.net wrote: >> >> Ciao Alberto, >> you'll probably right. >> >> What comes to Cocoon lifecycle, I don't get it. Has C3 anything in >> common with C2 except the concept of pipelines? Can you do the same >> things with it? >> When C2.2 was published, I fell off the wagon because of techical >> differences. C3 knocked me out for good. If you think of the user >> coming from C2.1 environment who has get used to utilize flowscript, >> templates, cforms, xsp etc and think of him/her trying to get >> accustomed in C3, I think the least one can say is that he/she will be >> totally in a faint. >> >> I don't either get the eagerness for dumbing all the "good old" >> techiques and frameworks. > > Well if you refer to avalon as good old framework, I think dropping > that is the best thing that happened for c3. To use spring is using > the de facto industry standard and I bet there are MUCH MORE people > having used spring then avalon. Other then that xsp, cforms, ... are > home grown that are only known by nerds and which never have reached > to be a standard. Like other said in their responses the technology > ecosystem is changing rapidly and e.g. cform is nightmare to > understand, pain to extend and never had been really stable. Further > it brings no benefit over using html5 forms and REST services for the > ajax calls which is so much straight forward and ... de facto > industry > standard for web2 apps. > > I migrated a couple of 2.1 generators and transformer and it is not > too complicated to migrate. Further the whole concept is still the > same only details changed (e.g. validity and cache keys) > > The limitation of c2.x had been Avalon all this years. In c3 we > finally can use transformer as simple sax handler outside cocoon. > >> Of course the general abandonment will halt the development but if >> you think something like C2.1 and C2.2, I guess they will be useful >> for years to go, if you are willing and capable of updating some parts >> by your own. > > Having worked with each version I see your point, but would strongly > advice people to look into c3 when we release it in a stable version > (hopefully in the next couple of month). > > salu2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@cocoon.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@cocoon.apache.org
