Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
In the active approach we need to continue the work that Sylvain has
started, and we need to decide what to export from each block -
everything or just the API.
Anyway, as the active approach is more scalable and the passive one
requires some work to be done that not will be reused if we continue
with the active approach, it seemed better to me (and others) to start
with the active approach right away.
The "passive approach" leads to too many expored packages as the component
manager is in the core bundle and it has to have access to all necessary
packages in order to do its job. IMO this is a prove of concept but not more.
If we want to do the things right, we have to go for the "active approach" to
get all the advantages Daniel mentioned. Except that we have to restructure
things, which is of course painful, I can't see any disadvantages. Hence a clear
+1 for the active approach from me.
IMO we should get it working and then we will do as much as possible to make
this next-generation Cocoon as backwards-compatible as possible and provide the
necessary migration information to package Cocoon 2.1 applications as a block
(bundle).
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
