Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 27 avr. 05, � 16:41, Daniel Fagerstrom a �crit :
...Then we need a name for "sitemap blocks". I propose to call them "cocoonlets"...
Frankly, I don't like the name - most of these "-let" names sound bad to me.
....But I don't think the names "component block" and "sitemap block" are any good...
Dunno, I think they are fairly simple to explain:
A Component Block contains dynamically loadable java components, meant to be used in java or flowscript code.
A Sitemap Block contains dynamically loadable pipeline elements (Generators, Transformers, Serializers), meant to be used in sitemap pipelines.
Might be but it misses the most important aspect of the sitemap blocks, i.e. that they are a kind of light weight Cocoons that contain an own (sub) webapp and that talk to each other through the block protocol. So they primary role is as an active service rather than being a passive package of components.
oh, c'mon, Daniel, this argument is completely bogus. There is no difference in 'activity' between a pipeline invoking a subpipeline using IoC and a java class calling another java class thur IoC. The distrincion between 'active' and 'passive' lost its meaning a long time ago in IoC-based systems.
I'm very -1 on cocoonlet, it stinks pretty bad.
The plan is to attack sitemap and component blocks in parallel, but this is a implementation solution, not a marketing one.
I'm sure at the end a block will contain both components and sitemaps.
You got what you wanted, now stop pushing.
-- Stefano.
