> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > John Morrison wrote: > >>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >>>>Suggestion: org.apache.cocoon.environment.bean > >>> > >>>Why? I don't see a cocoon bean as part of the environment. > > [...] > > >>I could ask you, then what do you think a cocoon bean would look like? > > > > I don't think it's the bean's interface he's questioning, I *believe* > > he's questioning why the bean should be part of the environment package. > > Yup.
Ah, I thought that the "... would look like..." quote ment you thought he was questioning the interface, not it's package. sorry. > But my point is, how can you use the current Cocoon with that > interface without creating a new environment? I see possible hacks, but > no nice solution without it. > > > *shrug* I'd have thought that the bean would become rather more > > central with an instance being created by o.a.c.Main.java and > > o.a.c.servlet.*Servlet.java > > Exactly. > > o.a.c.Main.java is conceptually part of a CLI environment. Yep, > And o.a.c.servlet.*Servlet.java is conceptually part of a servlet > Environment. OK... > Then we would have an Ant environment, a mailet one, and a bean one. > Each with a different frontend and "wrapper", which is the environment. > > I have already separated these on my hd in two different dirs in > ./src/environments/cli/** > ./src/environments/servlet/** should these be blocks/modules/whatever_the_current_name_is? > So that Cocoon core is not dependent on servlets, and we can for example > run a minimal "embedded" Cocoon without the servlet stuff. Would be nice. > Legacy package names confuse IMHO the correct conceptual and actual > layering of Cocoon. Don't know an answer to this. I would like to see the code for the bean though (read the emails :) J. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
