On 29 Jul 2004, at 09:19, Marc Portier wrote:
Rest assured I'm equally concerned with a number of other voices here about (using Ugo's wording) 'giving just more rope to hang yourself in'
However, when I see people 'removing and merging' then I can only see less rope :-)
IMHO we need to be honest/modest about how far any cocoon-user actually wants to be 'guided' and 'helped'.
Collating both points into one concern: with the current Cocoon, we already provide quite some rope, in the sense that I've seen a separation between what developers *intend* to be used, and what users *want* to use of Cocoon's broad set of features.
Contrarily to httpd.conf/mod_rewrite-land, where there's "just the HTTP spec" to implement, we are at liberty to put any kind of behaviour in any component or block of Cocoon. That leads us to the situation where a developer can create a block of functionality just to get a feel of whether it makes any sense, but suddenly users pick it up and start exploiting the thing as if it is production-ready code, expecting or hoping for some form of support, even when they exploit it beyond what it has been intended for.
I believe the Cocoon users expect guidance and help beyond what they get now, and we shouldn't provide more scriptable rope to hang themselves with. This of course depends on what we believe Joe Average Cocoon user is - and if we expect Joe to subscribe to the developers list to understand what our intentions were. :-)
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
