Torsten Curdt wrote: > > reading this thread it seems we are approaching the > function-based sitemap... > expressed in XML. What a lot of people tried to avoid in the flow > discussion. > > Pipelines seem to become more of a function-like programming construct... > which is not bad at all. IMO it would make a lot of sitemap > constructs much > less verbose... That's what Ovidiu was talking about long time > ago.. it is > possible to have a sitemap written in javascript (or of course java) > Question is only - do we want this to happen? > > If so: I'm wondering if should try to find a more general way to it > If not: Are sure we want all those extensions discussed in this thread > If maybe: let's discuss ;-) > Personally, I think it's good to discuss these things, but we shouldn't give others (=users) the impression that everything we did with 2.0.x is "wrong" and needs to be revised. If one looks at the mass of mails in the dev list over the last weeks, there were nearly only RTs and nothing else. Taking only this might be seen as an evidence of the current state of Cocoon. I also tend to the decision that we should give users more time to learn the new concepts of 2.0 before we redesign these concepts again. IMHO, these are all things for Cocoon 3.0 but not for 2.1 - but that's only my personal opinion, so you can simply ignore it.
I still think we should try (again) to reach the "release early release often" theme and focus on the 2.0.3 release. This does of course not mean to not discuss RTs etc. They are always welcome. So, to answer the question from Torsten, I would vote for "If not"... Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
