>> I think that Cocoon2 will be a step in the right direction regarding webapps
>> over Cocoon1, but I'm still not convinced that all of the webapp MVC goals
>> have been solved like they have been solved in Turbine.
>
> I completely agree: it's a first step, but the matter is complex and we
> already agreed that "publishing" and "web applications" are not
> independent.. thus we need a single framework that takes care of both.
I agree. However, building a publishing framework within Turbine isn't
nearly as complex as building it within Cocoon IMHO because essentially you
are taking an existing application which does publishing (Cocoon) and
placing it within a framework (Turbine). If you do it the other way around
(building a framework within Cocoon), then you are going to be re-inventing
Turbine IMHO.
> Is cocoon2 the end of this? no, I don't think so either.
>
> But at the same time, we want to try things out, expecially given the
> compiled sitemap concept cocoon2 has which is extremely powerful.
I agree. I'm not against that at all, however, I'm not sure why that wasn't
being done in Turbine. Do you see my point? You are adding a framework thing
to a publishing system instead of adding that to the framework.
> At the end, I don't know, it's up to you guys to decide if it's worth
> using or not... at the same time, please, let us know if something is
> wrong or missing so that we can learn and improve.
>
> It's not a competition, it's a convergence.
I agree.
> I picture a future where only one framework exists... there is no need
> for two. If this will be called Cocoon or Turbine or Whatever doesn't
> really make any difference for both me and Jon, as long as things are
> done the way we like and they way you like it.
>
> But you have to know the alternatives before choosing the right
> direction, don't you think? I personally believe that Jetspeed2 should
> be based on Cocoon2. Of course, I'm biased. But Cocoon2 design fits
> perfectly in what jetspeed2 needs.
How do you know what Jetspeed2 needs? In other words, I have yet to see a
real clear direction and agreement from ALL of the Jetspeed people about
what 2.0 really is. So many people are giving their input and ideas that
there has yet to be a real clear decision IMHO.
Even on the homepage of the website, Jetspeed claims to be like 10 different
products and none of them are actually even finished or close to being
finished IMHO. Releasing a 2.0 means that there is a feature set that has
been improved on by adding more features. Not a complete rewrite and
re-structuring of the design goals of the application. Am I making sense?
> Believe me, the future of Cocoon2 has never been so bright. I decided to
> step back at this point because there was nothing more I could add to
> the picture, being the design of the things I could help on finished and
> agreed upon.
I think that is great, but you are a guiding light.
> Exactly. A project even gets healthier or dies. I bet on the first one
> for Cocoon. In fact, I'm betting a lot more than it shows :)
So, time will tell.
> I don't either, but I trust the people there and I trust the fact that
> oss dynamics will choose the right direction for the community... which
> will be the right direction for me as well.
Good.
> There is a big design difference between the two projects: Turbine is
> programmer centric, Cocoon is not.
I think you are missing the point of Turbine. Turbine is just a framework.
Your programmers would build a publishing system within Turbine that is easy
for non-programmers to work with. Jetspeed understands this concept through
its use of Portlets.
> Jon believes web apps and publishing
> are independent things, one could have turbine as a servlet filter and
> cocoon as the proper servlet... I thought about the concept and it works
> for many things, but not for all.
No, I believe that you would build a "publishing webapp" on top of Turbine.
That is the disconnect that I don't think you understand quite yet. :-)
> Just one thing: don't rule Cocoon2 out because it's young... try it out
> when it's finished and see if it works for you... if not, well, either
> help or change.
I agree.
> Cocoon2 will evolve anyway, but any help is an important way to make
> convergence quicker and communities bigger and stronger.... in the
> Apache spirit, a happy community is all that matters, if you use Turbine
> or Cocoon or both or your own framework, it doesn't matter, as long as
> this project is alive and kicking.
I agree.
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
