Sounds good to me. +1 >From your description, I guess you want to add a new block for Cocoon Forms in parallel to the Woody one, right?
Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Reinhard P�tz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: From Woody to CocoonForms > > > In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with > renaming Woody to CocoonForms. First I want to move the > _core_ which means that I want to make one simple example run. > > Of course, this renaming has impact on many names and in > order to avoid doing the same thing twice I want to here > other opinions on this: > > namespaces: > http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0 > --> > http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0 > > packages: > org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation > --> > org.apache.cocoon.forms.transformation > > classnames: > AbstractWoodyAction > --> > AbstractCocoonFormsAction > > xconf: > <woody-datatype logger="woody"> > --> > <forms-datatype logger="forms"> > > > What do you think? > > > I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know > that I don't have enough time. So I hope that some others > jump in <hint/> ;-) But this has also a technical impact: the > libs (oro, > reporter-expressions) have to move for some time to > lib/optional (IIUC). > > -- > Reinhard > >
