> > Sylvain Wallez wrote > > > < snip> > > > > > >Hmm, currently I'm thinking of voting -1 for defining the components > > >in the xconf. This would create a deadlock. Very interesting > > >and funny thing... > > > > > Does sitemap-local xconf remove the lock ? > > > > Hm, now it seems that we all agree on the Blocks thoughts in some way. > This new concept will perhaps solve all our problems. > > So why not have all sitemap components in the sitemap for 2.0.2 and > then start with the blocks design/implementation after the release?
Well, since we are only talking about the "demo" site - I don't care. If you want to move them only for 2.0.2 I am fine with that - as long as we tackle the cocoon-blocks after the new release!! > If we now move some components, the user will get confused and have > to learn a new schema. And then some time later we introduce the blocks > and they have to learn a third one, then. ok, that's true... > Except for "it would be nice if the components are all defined in > the cocoon.xconf", I see really no pro for it. The pro's will only come with the cocoon-blocks... > Again, the opposite is true if you think of components defined in > sub-sitemaps which we all seem to agree on that this is a good think. then let's do it this way... -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
