On May 25, 2006, at 9:32 PM, André van Toly wrote:
Op 25-mei-2006, om 21:24 heeft Daniel Ockeloen het volgende
geschreven:
reposted it myself since i made even more language mistakes the
normal sorry :)
-------------
Now your proposal's main point is we might not be able to share
frameworksn based on these 2 models and we might not even
implement the components made for these frameworks in the same way
but by adding a few interface concepts we can atleast demand they
are shareable and if we make them configurable very useable in
all the frameworks.
Is this a fair view ?
No, i don't think so. Yes, we aim to be able to develop components
which as well can be used as portlets or just jsp snippets of code
in templates. But no, it is not ment to exclude 'ways' of
developings websites. It aims at being a framework that can be used
in several mmbase repository, cms implementations or frameworks:
leo cms, kennisnet, patmos, just jps templates, you name it.
---André
Maybe its a naming issue what i mean to say is that we will probably
have multiple frameworks (or whatever we call them) called Didactor,
karma (cmsc?), coppa, leocms, pathos that can all use the same
components but that the way they are implemented can differ and match
the frameworks itself.
My main point and question is it correct that there are 2 ways that
people see and want to use mmbase. And both want a framework i think
its not just
a issue of excluding (you can allways keep doing what you allways
have done) but the tools vs builders view. Also personally i don't
anyone can continue the way we have not because we will stop you from
doing it but using the principles we hope client and partners will
start to demand that your
extentions follow the component rules and will run in any of the
frameworks.
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
