Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > Le 16 oct. 04, � 12:51, Guido Casper a �crit : > > > ...Please don't be dogmatic about this. You have to depend on > > something! Just make sure you control your dependencies > (the quality > > and the quantity of them) and they don't get out of control... > > You're right, and anyway I'm not working on these containers > so I shouldn't make too strong statements. > > The point that I was trying to make is that I really like the > idea of considering the "cocoon core" container separately > from the "cocoon applications" one, as much for marketing > reasons as for technical ones. > For a long time I was against writing our own container as I saw it simply as a waist of time/resources. But after just talking five minutes with Pier at the GT, I changed my opinion :) (Sometimes Pier can be really convincing).
For a long time we use Avalon as the core container and this forces users to use this container for their applications as well. Sure it is possible to use Spring, it might be possible to use others as well, but it's not that easy and straight forward. Now, if we build the core on Spring now we have the same problem again. What if someone wants to use Avalon (uh!) for his application? So this is a more technical reason than all the valid points about dependencies, communities etc. So, building an independent and *simple* core and making it possible to use any container on the application level is imho a very good way. In addition we could suggest to use Spring on the application level, but we shouldn't enforce it. Carsten
