Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > This seems wrong, as blocks are to be hot-deployed by Cocoon, and this > > is instead an integral part of Cocoon that must be in the classpath > > before Cocoon starts. > > > > For this, it was initially thought to use "modules", ie exactly the > > same thing that is now done with blocks, but that would not change > > later into real blocks. > > > > Is it ok if I move it to a "modules" section and add the build of > > modules as for blocks? > > > I understand your concern. But what other "blocks" would be candidates > for "modules"? Can we foresee that Cocoon's core and the various > environments can be modules too? > Ah, the good, old and famous discussion about blocks vs. modules. I never liked the name "blocks" for our current directory structure :) I think we shouldn't change anything *now*, wait for the "real blocks" and decide then how the structure might look like.
WDYT? Carsten
