Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > -1 for 2.1, no question about it. > > It is true that Cocoon needs a much better component containment > technology for us to be able to implement cocoon blocks as designed so > far. > > But you have my word that I'll continue to -1 any change to the 2.x > family of Cocoon releases if some fundamental contract like marking > interface to represent component behavior stop working. > > My suggestion to the current avalon developers that share Cocoon's > concerns (not all of them do) is: think incrementally, think about > migrations paths, think about small evolutionary steps. > > I know (by experience) that this is extremely hard to do (or take a huge > amount of time and energy) but Cocoon *is* a stable technology and we > want to continue it to be. > > We will not change some fundamental interfaces or contracts any time > soon. > > Let me repeat this for those worried guys that are reading this thread: > > WE WILL NOT CHANGE FUNDAMENTAL CONTRACTS UNDER YOUR FEET > Couldn't have said this better - and really don't mean this ironically.
So, let's put this with the blocks on our new list for 2.2. Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
