I could be wrong (that happens often enough), but what if we eventually
replace Woody/Cocoon Forms with something better? If it is very
different then IMHO just a namespace version change 1.0->2.0, etc. may
not make a lot of sense. A new name may be in order at that point.
If we start the pattern with CForms then we have a non-fantasy name,
while still leaving room for future names for new forms frameworks
(Super Forms -> SForms, etc.)
+1 from me. :-)
I thought of the present variations, which are all nominated for deprecation, but yes, looking to the future you keep the possibility of distinction.
Yes, ideally there will be only one type of forms and nothing more, but I suppose that was the idea too when XMLForms emerged.
Why not meet halfway: wforms as a contribution to the old name (woody) and allow for a possible future sforms.
I think Cocoon is powerful enough "as a brand" to allow for different names.
After all, reading into Cocoon dropped many more projects/names etc. in my
lap: avalon, excalibur, xindice, poi, batik, etc.
Ok, woody "emerged" from Cocoon, and I don't want to repeat the "yes/no
renaming discussion", but I don't think you have to be that strict.
That's the point: Cocoon Forms is part of Cocoon and supported by the Cocoon community. If somebody wants to come up with another implementation we won't stop him but it will *not* be the official forms framework. And if we think one day that the new framework is superior to the old one we can decide that we want to have a new Cocoon Forms version (indicated by the version number --> also note: Cocoon 1.0 has from the technological base nothin in common with Cocoon 2.0!)
Going this way we can be sure that there is only one 'official' forms framework.
-- Reinhard
