Ok. I have to agree on the documentation issue. This certainly hasn't approved and for usage of sitemap components I still tend to use the Cocoon2.1.x docs.
I do believe as well that Cocoon forms in combination with flowscript was state of the art back then but other frameworks are doing an equally good or even better job nowadays. Cocoon is still my preferred tool to do xml transformations but if you want to build highly dynamic interactive webapps you might as well take a look around for other available options. But this is where Cocoon3.0 comes into play... Instead of building your complete webapp with the Cocoon framework you can now choose your preferred framework (GWT, Wicket, -> http://java-source.net/open-source/web-frameworks ) and outsource the xml stuff to Cocoon3 by just using the Java API. Also check out Reinhard's effort for howto http://cocoon.apache.org/3.0/reference/html-single/index.html#wicket-integration And I expect I'll make the switch to Cocoon3 over the next year because of this reason. On the other hand the first implementations of XPROC are available which resembles a lot what cocoon has to offer... Cheers, Robby -----Original Message----- From: Andre Juffer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lowering in amount of users' posts? I pretty much agree with what Robby just wrote. There are certain differences of course between Cocoon 2.2 and earlier versions, which may be somewhat difficult to grasp. Maven is a standard build tool and it is well supported by Netbeans and other similar tools. It is easy to construct an cocoon application with Netbeans. Also, the use of Spring is a logical choice. It would takes a few days to learn, but it is worth the effort. If you already know Cocoon 2.1, the switch to Cocoon 2.2 is not really hard (again, takes a few days). All in all, as Robby indicated, it may take you a week or so to convert to C2.2. The only concern I have is the level of documentation in C2.2 and also C3. On the other hand, some of documentation that was already available under Cocoon 2.1 that is also applicable to C2.2 (like flowscript/jxtemplate) could (should) have been transferred to C2.2. I wish the development of cocoon 2.2 or cocoon 3 would continue. With the recent emphasis on RESTful web services, I believe that cocoon 2.2 / 3 could become a major player in that direction. All the tools one would require for a RESTful web application are essentially available. Many representations (Json, XML, txt, etc) of resources can easily be prepared with XSLT. In that respect, I would claim that Cocoon was ahead of its time, because the ability to generate various representations from the same source (usually XML) was always seen as one of Cocoon's strengths. Also, the introduction of blocks in C2.2 is quite compatible with the way of thinking of RESTful URIs. So, in my opinion, Cocoon is a great tool and we should continue to use it. And we should start ask questions again. Questions means interest and interest stimulates further development. Best, André --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
