Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote, On 13/03/2003 9.36: > > The flow stuff is an "optional" component, which means I can use it > > or not. Cocoon started as a web publishing framework and as flow is > > not directly a core component for web publishing but for web > > applications, I really would like to see flow as an own block > > that I can either install or not. > > Don't get me wrong, I like flow and I see the use of it, but flow > > is an optional component in the same sense that for example the > > portal framework is an optional component. > > Honestly, I don't see this... I see the flow on par with the sitemap, > and the sitemap is not an optional components. > > But the sitemap is pluggable so the flow should be too? I feel bells > ringing about flexibility syndrome, with everything pluggable... I don't > see that this will give us a big gain now, apart from some kind of > architectural componentization. > I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, I don't want to make "flow by itself pluggable". I want to make the sitemap pluggable, so that I can plug-in the flow.
I guess this comes down to the question of "what is the cocoon core?". I talked last year with Stefano about this, and we both agreed that everything that is not required to run Cocooon, is optional and therefore a block. And we agreed that flow is optional and therefore a block. (Stefano, I hope I remember the discussion correctly here). Anyway, if we look at the current blocks, we have for example an html block. It is really hard to argument whether this block belongs to the core or not. The same applies for flow. Now, I think answering the question "Does flow belong to the core?" is very simple as it is introduced with 2.1, so it wasn't in 2.0 and is therefore an extension or optional. I have done many Cocoon projects over the last years and not a single project requires flow. (And this does *not* imply that flow is useless!) Making flow optional reduces the Cocoon core. Carsten
