Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Bart Molenkamp wrote:
<snip/>
Knowing the configuration settings of a component
can also require (deep) knowledge about the implementation. And,
configuration writers don't need to write the configuration from
scratch, the already configured defaults are sufficient.
<snip/>
2. To configure a component, knowledge about it is required anyways.
Looking at the configuration of CForms for example, there is quite some
configuration, but not much for a regular user to change (all those
builders etc - which I think is great that it is configurable). For
regular Cocoon users, I think the default configuration that comes with
a Cocoon build is sufficient in many, many cases (again, I don't think
users write configuration files from scratch).
I found this phrase appropriate to this discussion ...
... is a full-stack, open-source web framework ... for writing
real-world applications with joy and less code than most
frameworks spend doing XML sit-ups ...
So instead of doing XML sit-ups :-) let's use sensible built-in defaults, as
Sylvain suggests:
Most components have sensible builtin defaults, meaning they often can
work without specific configuration. This is different from Spring where
you have to describe everything. Cultural difference that explains both
why Avalon is intrusive and why Cocoon components should "just work"
except when you want to give them some specific instructions through
their configuration.
Vadim
