--- Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> > On 1/2/06, Ralph Goers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>That seems to be a catch-22. How do you move away
> from Avalon without
> >>making these kind of changes?
> >
> Good question - I think noone is able to answer that
> one.
>
> >
> > Honestly, I don't see how anything in the 2.x
> series could move away
> > from Avalon. Too much refactoring needed, too many
> issues on the
> > table.
> >
> Yeah, and I really don't understand this - I (and
> others) propose small
> but simple steps to a) improve using Cocoon and b)
> provide a smooth
> migration path. But even if these proposals do not
> include heavy
> refactoring and do not come with problems, people
> are blocking it and
> always point to the "we need a rewrite". Then if
> people are suggestion,
> let's rewrite, the same people (and others) complain
> that that is
> currently not an option. So in the end we are
> doomed.
>
> So I'm coming back to my idea, is anyone against
> adding constructor
> injection to ECM++ or at least make it pluggable so
> I can add it for my
> own projects? The change adds only a feature while
> maintaining 100%
> compatibility.
Without having time to understand in depth what you
guys are talking about, I'd say that we should not
block any features that don't introduce any backwards
incompatibilities. If people disagree here, I would be
very intersted in their reasons ...
So +1 for your enhancements Carsten!
--
Reinhard
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
