Hi, I've been following this thread and I've kept wondering: what is a TLP???
:=) nicolas Le Jeudi 05 F�vrier 2004 16:17, Geoff Howard a �crit : > Tim Larson wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 08:48:29AM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >>On 5 Feb 2004, at 06:46, Geoff Howard wrote: > >>>Would there be benefit to keeping it more general: "XML based > >>>application and publishing framework and applications built on and in > >>>support of that framework". > >> > >>As for the charter, I agree with Goeff here: we need to keep it general > >>or we would need the board to change our charter every day. > >> > >>So, I would: > >> > >> 1) keep it language neutral: many people dislike java, but they can > >>leave with it if th application is worth the effort (think lisp and > >>emacs, for example) > >> > >> 2) keep it technology neutral (don't say XML/XSLT/SAX/DOM) > >> > >> 3) aim to identify the achitectural principles (modularity, > >>composability, separation of concerns, feature reductionism) > > > > If the board requires specific technology names, lets keep the > > technology choices low-key. We could talk about the architectural > > principles and then just mention that this is "currently implemented > > using" XYZ technologies. This would let us be specific about the > > technologies in use now, without creating a social contract to always > > use this same list of technologies. > > > > I hope the architectural principles are enough so this document > > will not have to specifically mention Java, SAX, etc. Like Stefano, > > I think Cocoon's main purpose is to make it possible to follow good > > design principles, such as SoC, modularity, etc., and pushing certain > > technologies is merely a side effect of needing to have an actual > > implementation of the framework. > > We should actually be distinguishing carefully here IMO between Cocoon's > purpose, and the purpose of the Cocoon TLP. I think we all agree that > for the foreseeable future, we should keep Cocoon proper focused on XML > pipelines, using Java. If someone wants to make a .Net port of Cocoon > and make it work using binary pipelines, using C#, then we could make a > sister project within the TLP called Cartoon or something. It would be > out of scope for Cocoon to do that, but not necessarily for the TLP. > > Now, the question in my mind is "how far to we want the TLP to be > allowed to go away from what we now know of Cocoon?" so we don't get a > TLP that has to allow projects to do anything with any technology but > also don't have undue burden to innovate. > > Geoff
