Thanks for the info. Now I think we will wait with reverting to ECM. Perhaps it makes sense to first look at your stuff and see how/if it fits and then do the appropriate work.
Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2 > > +1 for reverting to ECM right now to have a more stable 2.2 base. > > 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 >
