On Feb 12, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
How
can an unstable block be the recommended approach?
That's easy.
What this tells me as a user is that I have a choice between (a) using something whose interfaces cannot be not locked down yet, or (b) choosing a dead-end technology.
Choosing (a) means that I will have more integration issues whenever I take an upgrade to Cooon. So there are cascading tradeoffs i.e., choosing introduces a tradeoff that will influence my decisions regarding Cocoon upgrades).
Choosing (b) means choosing something that's on the path to deprecation, which means that support will decrease... fixes will be low-priority, improvements unlikely, and ultimately even the community's knowledge of it will evaporate.
I also figure that if other technologies are to be deprecated in favor of Cocoon Forms or ("Cforms" or whatever... neé "Woody"), that probably means those technologies are inferior, so choosing (b) will mean having to deal with hassles that Woody was designed to solve.
It also tells me that the developers regard any time that might be spent making the (b) technologies nicer, fixing them, or investigating user issues with them is better spent contributing toward the full beatification of Cocoon Forms :-). (I guess I sort of said that already, under "support will decrease..."). But this is valuable knowledge to have when deciding on approaches.
All this is what I think when I read "Woody, though unstable, is the recommended way for forms handling".
Cheers,
— Mark
