Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> > > 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...
+1
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
