Daniel,
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:29:22 +0100, Daniel Fagerstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whithout migration part and/or extremely convincing usecases you will find it rather hard to have any impact at Cocoon. Most of us have invested so much effort in, and based on, the current architecture so we need good reasons for introducing incompabillity.
Understood. I have also invested a lot of time in cocoon (full time for two years). I understand how you feel. Unfortunately, my aim was to get these ideas out there, and let people think about them. It would seem I didn't present them in a very palatable way.
My initial reaction to your e-mail was one of disappointment and anger. I didn't spend weeks on this e-mail in an attempt to alienate myself from you guys, and that's what it feels like I've done.
Contrary to what it would appear is the belief, I wrote the e-mail in
an effort to /help/ the Cocoon project.
And contrary to what appears to be your belief, we replied as an effort to tune-down your 'blue sky' approach to a more "let's fix what's broken".
I don't think cocoon needs any of that massive redesign you suggest. But maybe I'm wrong.
I knew I couldn't just get in there and deliver all the changes myself, so I thought it was best to get them out on paper ASAP, and get other people excited and interested.
Sorry it didn't work out that way.
I'm sorry you take it bad.
I sense no close mindness here, just the reality of the facts: cocoon 2.x does not need an architectural redesign as Cocoon 1.x did. The costs of such redesign far exceed its benefits (unlike the 1.x -> 2.x migration)
But don't get me wrong: brainstorming is always helpful.. just don't be offended if I don't get excited as you about things ;-) if I did that, I would be offended with pretty much everybody everyday ;-)
-- Stefano.
