On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Ulrich Mayring wrote: > > > Rather I think Avalon/Phoenix > > are a better choice for the framework, they do not make nearly as many > > assumptions as the Cocoon framework does. > > Much more after this, but this is vital: Ulrich, what you consider "many > assumptions" about Cocoon, I consider it "carefully designed vertical > framework".
Stefano, with all due respect, there is another difference: Cocoon is a web application framework, whereas Avalon is a generic server framework. So the logical thing would be to put non-Web parts into Avalon (like XML Parser etc.) and Web things into Cocoon (Sitemap). > At the same time, as I said, it makes perfect sense to both: > > 1) extract some of Cocoon components and move them into avalon since > they are "horizontal" enough. (XML Parser, XSLT processor, even > programming language generation or FO handling) Yes, that is exactly what I mean. > 2) encapsulate the Cocoon core engine into a block (if the > functionality and IoC design is not compromised) [but it may be > extremely tricky since we have to provide the Cocoon environemnt classes > into Avalon and this is going to be painful] In my mind the core Cocoon engine could also be a .sar or WAR application, it does not have to be a single block. Ulrich -- Ulrich Mayring DENIC eG, Softwareentwicklung --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
