Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >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. > >
+1. Same feeling about Stefano's answer : we *need* stability, or nobody will want to use Cocoon for a large or long-lived project. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies Apache Cocoon http://www.anyware-tech.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
