hi I will read it tonight, and react to it tomorrow
ernst Johannes Verelst wrote:
Hi all, As some of you know (and probably others don't), I have been busy together with Nico Klasesn to see if there is a way to create an "MMBase framework". The reason is simple: many companies have spent huge amounts of money for custom MMBase implementations, and components in those implementations are never given back to the community. One of the reasons is because of the 'lock-in' to their own framework which was built on top of MMBase. With many frameworks already in existance, and the need for "generic components", I looked with Nico at Didactor, the EO site and to finalist's Karma/CMSC. The result of this session is now a word document that I attach here (html version also added). The main suggestion is: don't enforce a "great unified mmbase framework", but work the other way around: define some interfaces that frameworks should implement and components must use. That way every framework can keep its own way of doing things. So, don't enforce people to use either tree-include or leaf-include, but create an interface for creating URLs for which the EO will write an implementation for their framework which generates urls based on leaf-include. Next week, on the symposium organized by Jo, I will present this proposal to parties interested in a mechanism to share components between parties. Currently it is "my" proposal (together with Nico), but I would hope it could be "our" proposal. For that I need your comments, insights and possibly even flamewars :). Johannes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
