Robby Pelssers wrote:
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
Yes, this is exactly how I would like to work with Cocoon. My preference
is the dojo toolkit, though.
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...
Was not aware of this one. I'll have a look.
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]
--
Andre H. Juffer | Phone: +358-8-553 1161
Biocenter Oulu and | Fax: +358-8-553-1141
Department of Biochemistry | Email: [email protected]
University of Oulu, Finland | WWW: www.biochem.oulu.fi/Biocomputing/
StruBioCat | WWW: www.strubiocat.oulu.fi
NordProt | WWW: www.nordprot.org
Triacle Biocomputing | WWW: www.triacle-bc.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
