TREGAN Fabien wrote:
>
> >I can only hope such architectural decisions are not solely made based
> >on documentation or 'white papers', but also on evaluating design and
> >codebase.
>
> I wish it were :)
Please, allow me to kick in since this is a very important discussion
for all those people that would like to use Cocoon for their future
problems but...
Let me dissect this 'but':
1) Cocoon 1.x was an immature web publishing framework and a terrible
web-app framework.
2) Cocoon 2.0.x is a mature web publishing framework, design is
balanced, implementation solid, performance acceptable (given the
complexity of the application), usability is great (mostly because of
the sitemap concept). It is a better web-app framework, but it's *way*
far from being a kick-ass framework.
3) Cocoon 2.1.x will finally balance things out with an architecture
that allows both 'declarative' web serving (a.k.a. publishing) and
'procedural' web serving (a.k.a. web applications). Cocoon will be the
first web framework design to fit *both* needs. *THIS* will allow us to
market it differently from what we did in the past, turning it into a
more general "XML Application Framework".
Sure, the learning curve is steeper for Cocoon than it is for other
technologies, but I think that JSP were a dead end when they were
created and they still are, expecially since they are not XML friendly.
Now: am I happy with HEAD? no, I'm not. I don't think we are even close
to be that kick-ass framework that we all want it to become. Why? mostly
because of Actions.
I want to kill the concept of actions.
I'll show in detail how I plan to do this in a later email.
--
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]
