On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 16:42 +0200, Torsten Schlabach wrote: > > 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!
I do. :) I just found out a while ago when I was updating the cocoon docu and followed my usual procedure (svn ci -m "") and it worked. > 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. Yes, I recall that all committer that have been with lenya from day one (wyona cms -> Apache Incubator Cocoon subproject: Lenya) should have that access. Some of this committers are as well subscribed to the Cocoon PMC list. > But there never was any action to make this happen. I think the discussion stopped with no action taken, you are right. > And > sometimes I'd really love to have write access to Coocon. Yes, I think that would help both projects. > But that's a > separate topic. > Yeah, just start that. Please cc as well forrest, because we have the same problematic over-there. +1 to make a clear decision and to take action. > > 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. agree. > 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. > IMO > Cocoon still is a lot about rendering something. IMO that would be more one big part of forrest. ;-) Cocoon is more a component framework. All the components (better parts) of the pipeline (better sitemap) are concerns of cocoon. That is on the one hand offering *some* of this components and on the other hand creating/maintaining the overall framework that allows new components (and the communication between them). Lenya, on the other hand, would provide *ideally only* cocoon cms specific components. That are plug-able into any cocoon based app. Actually having worked a bit with the new usecase framework, I can say that this component of lenya is following this goal. All usecases are avalon components that could run in any cocoon based app without mayor rewriting. Now as lenya project we have to concentrate on providing/developing cms specific components and building a cms specific meta-framework for cocoon. One advantage in developing our cms components the "cocoon-way" is that cocoon and forrest devs can understand our components easier. > 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. Agree. +1 > 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. > +1 > Having said that, the new component should be be used by Lenya specific > code, but not rely on it then. > big +1 Every lenya specific implementation, we come up with, should implement an abstract interface that cocoon can as well implement in their way. > Regards, > Torsten 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]
