Turbine and Cocoon don't really match together because they both expect them to be in control of the process flow and the user response.
If you really want/need to use Cocoon, check out the portal extensions to the Cocoon engine as well as the web services proxy, they may fit your need better. IMO, the benefits of mixing Turbine and Cocoon are not worth the trouble, you'll be better off by choosing one or the other. Other comments on your mail: - I you prefer, you can use Turbine and Jetspeed with JSPs rather than Velocity. JSPs will probably be better supported by your HTML editor. Alternatively, check out the Velocity mailing-lists archives where the topic of markup integration into visual tools has been extensively discussed... - Jetspeed also supports rendering to any XML format like SOAP provided your content is not keyed to a specific presentation layer, you just need to define the appropriate media types and provide JSP or Velocity templates -- Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jakarta Jetspeed - Enterprise Portal in Java http://jakarta.apache.org/jetspeed/ > -----Message d'origine----- > De : James Moliere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Envoy� : jeudi 5 d�cembre 2002 20:48 > � : Jetspeed Users List > Objet : Is anyone out there using Cocoon instead of Turbine? > > > Hello, > Is anyone out there using Cocoon instead of Turbine to > dynamically render > HTML content? The HTML editors that our developers use > (DreamWeaver MX) do > not bode well with Turbine. The comments (#) look ugly in > the HTML page > and they get in the way of precise layout. We also prefer > cocoon because > we may want to render future pages whose XML is a SOAP response. > > How was the transition from Turbine to Cocoon? Were there > any "GOTCHAS!"? > > thanks! > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
