Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:Carsten Ziegeler wrote:I think that the idea is excellent, but I wouldn't make it a block.Hi, it just came across my mind to create a "deprecated" block/module which contains all deprecated classes and interfaces. This would clean our core but we would still have compatibility when the block is used. Does this make sense? What do you think?
Blocks will be pluggable components, ut what you envision may need the classes at startup.
I would propose that we mimic the blocks build system for a section that contains Cocoon "parts" that can be used on startup, but can be taken out of the core.
I sent a mail some time ago about this, to create "modules" alongside blocks, but then I married, didn't follow it, and didn't even see if it had arrived ;-)
In this way the core can be smaller still, and we can keep additional functionality that is not part of the blocks concept separate. This could also help in making Cocoon profiles for smaller devices or such.
We would still have to decide the name though, is "modules" ok? Dunno.
Ah, now here we have the old modules vs. blocks discussion... :)
hehehe
Currently they are in fact packaged as "modules", ie as jars that need to be there at startup. In this I agree with you.I still think that the current "blocks" we have in the cvs head are the modules - and when we introduced them, I proposed to call them modules first. Ok, but that's the past - let's be constructive.
But IIUC there is no code there that cannot be in the future repackaged in a cob and be dynamically loaded. There are only Cocoon Components and Avalon Components.
Making a deprecated thing, would probably become a deprecated block for deprecated Cocoon components, and a deprecated module for Cocoon modules (ie all that can be taken out of Cocoon core but is not to go in COBs).
the root module.xml?I'm fine with the name modules and this separation. But then we should perhaps rename the modules.xml to something else.
hehehe, that's the gump descriptor, some call it gump.xml, some projectname.xml, I called it module.xml because of CVS module.
hehehe it does create confusion. What would you prefer as a name?
project-info.xml ?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
