Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ...
Because while deploying an avalon block in cocoon might make sense, deploying a cocoon block in merlin wouldn't make any sense at all.
Exactly the point.
Cocoon is not a generic container, it's a very specific container, and our blocks can only work with Cocoon.
What should instead be seen, is how to make Cocoon be based *on* Fortress and be usable *in* Merlin.
That and how is the Cocoon block definition conflicting with Avalon
definition for blocks. I believe there is some conflict, and since
it seems that the Cocoon community doesn't want to have a two way
compatibility going on with Cocoon blocks,
It's not that we don't want only, it's that it doesn't make sense to use a Cocoon block in a generic Avalon container.
If we use the same plug for electricity power and data signals, it doesn't mean that we can plug them together and want them to work somehow.
then it would be in everyone's best interest to make Cocoon blocks with Cocoon proprietary locations for meta-info. Change BLOCK-INF to COCOON-INF, and any block definition conflicts go away. That would be enough for now.
No problem with that.
In fact the suggestions were to keep a common place but distinguish on DTD, so that future convergence could be easier. If you prefer the more clear-cut solution, I have no problem with it.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------