Marc Portier wrote
I do understand this might break some backwards compat stuff, but the block is labeled 'unstable' and 'alfa' precisely because we know this is bound to happen
nevertheless Bruno is doing an effort to notify the users list of important changes in the usage of Woody (making sure were not abusing our early adopters here)... I would like us to continue that effort
Can't we provide a compatibility mode by running an XSL transformation to the newer format triggered by an older namespace ?
Speaking against my own case: I would seriously loath to see _already_ compatibility layers being introduced into Woody at this early stage.
If Woody is to become a real value proposition for some serious form handling in Cocoon-space and the community is willing to refactor (and break compatibility) the hell out of it to arrive at this stage, I find the current rate of adoption of Woody isn't big enough to already warant compromises and compatibility stuff.
I find it much more important that as much people as possible intellectually 'own' Woody's design and code than having to explain early adopters (even if we (=OT) made them do so) that stuff will be breaking from here until Woody stabilizes. I'm pretty sure these early adopters will see the value of using code that is 'owned' by more than OT-peeps only.
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
