> Hmm, wouldn't make it more sense to enhance the JCR Block to fit *as > well* the need of a cms? I mean most of us lenya committer has write > access to cocoon.
I don't! There was a discussion once on the fact that the projects had agreed at some point in time to exchange write permissions and this had been confirmed. But there never was any action to make this happen. And sometimes I'd really love to have write access to Coocon. But that's a separate topic. > Your suggestion are very interesting but I would like to see that going > back to cocoon. We would not loose the over-side and still have a JCR > block that is able to focus more on the cms usecase. In my understanding, Cocoon and Lenya have quite different goals here. IMO Cocoon still is a lot about rendering something. Yes, I know, with all the flow and writeable sources, it is not *just* a rendering engine, but the overall design of Cocoon is fitted for the get it, mangle it, send it idea. This is why a pipeline still is about Generator -> ... -> Serilalizer. I could imagine that we come up with something that makes a lot of sense to Cocoon as well and there is nothting agains handing it over, but I would not necessarily have ourselves limited by the approach already taken by the Cocoon JCR source. IMO we should design some sitemap <-> JCR component to suit our needs in Lenya. If this happens to make sense to Cocoon - fine - we can pass it over there. Having said that, the new component should be be used by Lenya specific code, but not rely on it then. Regards, Torsten > On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 14:39 +0200, Felix Röthenbacher wrote: > ... >> My opinion is, that the jcr block is not of much use for a CMS as it >> uses a filesystem model rather than a CMS data model. >> >> The implementation of access to repository data as a Source is certainly >> indicated. > > Hmm, wouldn't make it more sense to enhance the JCR Block to fit *as > well* the need of a cms? I mean most of us lenya committer has write > access to cocoon. > > Your suggestion are very interesting but I would like to see that going > back to cocoon. We would not loose the over-side and still have a JCR > block that is able to focus more on the cms usecase. > > WDYT? > > salu2 > -- > thorsten > > "Together we stand, divided we fall!" > Hey you (Pink Floyd) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
