Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
The blocks FUD
==============
I'd like to remind once again that the blocks work doesn't
destabilize the traditional use of Cocoon the slightest, see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=114073731515724&w=2.
It just cannot affect that as there are no dependencies from the
"traditional" parts to the blocks fw whatsoever. Concerning the OSGi
stuff it is not even part of the build yet.
So the idea that the block work should hinder anyone to work as usual
is just plain wrong.
M10N
====
What hinder people to work as usual is that the M10N isn't finished.
Now it isn't that hard to use Cocoon anyway as I described in the
reference above. But of course it would be nicer to be able to use
Cocoon with some blocks OOTB. If you don't want to take part in
working on the blocks fw and deployer and is impatient, it wouldn't
be that hard to write a plugin or an Ant task called from Maven that
does the file copying that is described in the reference above.
BTW, I'm quite surprised that you want to go back to the messy Ant
build from 2.1.x after having argued for building Cocoon with Maven
for years. Have you lost your faith in Maven?
Springification
===============
Talking about destabilizing, a couple of weeks ago the trunk was
usable after the file copying referred to above. Actually it was so
stable that I developed a small customer application with it without
any problems. And AFAIU Reinhard have developed a large application
in it. This is not the possible anymore, after the Springification.
I tried to start a freshly checked out trunk together with the ajax,
form and template block after having copied the configuration files
and samples to cocoon-webapp as described above. The start page
worked, but all access to sub sitemaps gave null pointer exceptions,
where the TreeBuilder configuration can't be loaded. IIRC there where
other things that was reported that didn't work a couple of weeks ago
as well.
I suggest that the container should be reasonably stable before even
thinking about doing any big moves.
--- o0o ---
Not surprisingly I'm -1 on your points 2 and 3. If you want to
continue in that direction which IMO represents a huge step back. I
insist on that you prove that it work and that you actually have the
persistence to carry it through, on a copy of the trunk in the
whiteboard. After that you need to cast a vote about making that the
new trunk.
Also it should be much easier to update the Ant scripts than changing
the directory structure.
Anyway, why you would like to make such a huge effort in such an
backward pointing direction, instead of helping to finish the blocks
work or at least the M10N, is just beyond my imagination.
/Daniel
I agree with Daniel.
+1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
