Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > Stefano and I had a long discussion earlier this year (late last year?) in which we discussed several fundamental reasons why you might want to have the flow components pluggable. The requirement was mostly abstract so I won't spend the time digging up the thread, but I don't think this is a FS issue: late this year I intend to attempt to implement something very similar to flow using XSLT instead of JavaScript and I'd like to do it using the same sitemap hooks as flow uses (if they prove sufficient)...
Oh, and I would tend to think "architectural componentization" is a good thing...?
