top level project See the left menu at http://www.apache.org/ for all Apache TLP
-- Reinhard > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicolas Toper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Goal of the Cocoon TLP > > > 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 >
