On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:18 -0400, Tim Williams wrote: > On 7/16/07, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 08:16 -0400, Tim Williams wrote: ... > > The one wonderful think that cocoon still is awesome at is that you are > > not bind to ONE browser. Exhibit and similar project of the MIT are > > bound to XUL. > > That's not right, they are cross-browser. Most decent javascript > libraries out there are also cross-browser. As I said above though, I > wasn't pointing to it as a "solution", more as a different way to > solve problem, has lighter weight, mashup opportunities. It has > limits too, of course.
Ok, I must have mixed it up, but like you said the important thing is "lighter weight". > > I personally starting to like xul but is cocoon really obsolete? > > As I indicate above, those are technically unbound topics, but I think > the answer to the latter is slowly becoming - yes, for our purposes. IMO not only for our but as well in general. ... > > The think we never really decided is which road to go. > > As you point out above, the options we have aren't necessarily at > odds. It's less about which new road to choose I reckon and more > about us making the decision that a new road is indeed in Forrest's > future. No? Exactly. It seems we do not want to make a decision because we are scared of the consequences. salu2 -- Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions
