Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > 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. > > Currently they are in fact packaged as "modules", ie as jars that need > to be there at startup. In this I agree with you. > > 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.
True > > 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). > > > I'm fine with the name modules and this separation. But then we should > > perhaps rename the modules.xml to something else. > > the root module.xml? Yupp :) > > 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 ? Good choice! +1 for project-info.xml Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
