On Saturday 15 March 2003 17:37, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote, On 15/03/2003 9.25: > > On Friday 14 March 2003 22:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >>Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 14/03/2003 14.49: > >>>But I would like to be able to build cocoon without them and prevent > >>>people with the ability to use them to solve their problems. Just like > >>>Carsten wants to do with the flow or XSP. > >> > >>That's not the reason IIUC. > >>Flow adds new dependencies to Cocoon as jars, actions do not. What is > >>the technical reason why actions have to be able to be removed? > >> > >>If you don't want to use them, don't. Since people will be able to > >>compile with the support in, they will do so, and you will not prevent > >>them to use actions (nor ATM it's desireable). > > > > Well, if you become a Cocoon hosting service, you may have a different > > opinion of what other people can do in their sitemaps. > > Good point... if only removing actions would be a solution. If I were a > Cocoon hosting service, I would want complete control on all the > components that users can use, but that has nothing to do with Actions > per se IIUC, but about the implementations of Cocoon components and the > possibility of using them. > > Any suggestion on what you would want to have to create your costomized > version of Cocoon given the above point?
Well, I am not in that position, just came yo think about the possibility... OTOH, a lot can be solved with Java codebase security as well, so....??? Niclas
