On 19 Mar 2004, at 10:03, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard P�tz wrote:
+1 as this move shouldn't have any impact to Pier's container *if* we decide to use it.
Will you guys stop spoiling surprises? :-( :-(
Yes, "*if*" is a good remark here.
As a word of warning to the ones listening, I am developing a container implementing "blocks" in a way very-very-very similar to the Cocoon requirements to be used in my employer's web back-end (front end will be Cocoon 2.1 as-is).
As I explained to some of you, I'm actively developing it for VNU right now, but I am shooting for a more "stable" release with implemented blocks for sometimes next week... More news to follow...
It's up to you Carsten if you want to risk that ECM is replaced again in a few weeks.
Thanks :) - But I don't have any problem with this.
I think that if we want to implement "real" blocks, and if the container supports "real" blocks, the core problem won't be the container itself, but the infra-blocks contracts, especially related to class loading core in the VM and lookup issues as each block could be seen as a different "isolates".
And those issues would be reflected on the implementation of the blocks, and their components, themselves...
At least, that's my thought, and as I always say, I might be completely wrong.
Pier
