[Jon, sorry if get this twice, I don't know if you're still subscribed
with all the traffic... ;) ]
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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.
>
I think Cocoon 2 has definitely the potential to become *the* reference
framework for the next years but it has not yet proven it can support
complex webapps like Jetspeed, in which the separation between
administrator, programmer and user concerns is not always trivial
(user customization is a sucker in this respect).
I think the Jetspeed project is the ideal test case for letting the
convergence between Turbine and Cocoon happen: starting with a generic
Portlet API provide 2 implementations of the Portal either of top on
Turbine 1.x branch or on top of Cocoon 2, the 2.x branch.
I bet that the following will be true:
- the Turbine version will be easier to develop and debug
- the Cocoon 2 version will be easier to deeply integrate
and extend within a site.
If anything both implementations will help impove their respective
framework and Jetspeed 2 will at least serve to expose limitations
of Cocoon 2 as a web application framework.
<big snip>
> > So, my advice is to tread lightly and carefully.
>
> This is the same exact advice I'd give.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Keep up the good work.
>
Thanks and be well.
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
