On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:31, Peter Donald wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:04, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > I agree with you that ECM is crappy code. And you know that in order to > > > implement Cocoon Blocks, we'll need a much more modern (and thought-out) > > > container and that in order to be able to do that, we might even allow > > > some back-incompatible changes (for something like Cocoon 3.0) where it > > > does make sense to break compatibility. > > BTW - it may be best not to name them "Blocks". Phoenix already has the notion > of blocks which is vastly different from what Cocoon proposes to use the term > for. It would confusing to name two different concepts with identical names. > Given that Phoenix (and it's predecessor) has been using the term since > before I was involved in Avalon it may be best to rename Cocoon blocks to > something else so as to avoid confusion from users.
The Cocoon community so far never missunderstud them as Phoenix Blocks. Phoenix Blocks are not really known in that community (except those involved with the Apache Avalon projects). We had alot of discussions about the name an IIRC Cocoon Block was the one which we decided upon. Giacomo > Suggestions; > > * Cocoon Packs (foo.pak or foo.pax or foo.cpk) > * Cocoon Archives (foo.car) > * Cocoon Modules (foo.mod) > * Cocoon Libraries (foo.clb) > * Cocoon Bags (foo.bag) (as in Bean Bags) > * Cocoon Tins (foo.tin) > * Cocoon Boxs (foo.box) > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
