Yes, I do appreciate that there is a status associated with the blocks and perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh. However, I have seen folks in the users list saying that Woody is the recommended approach for forms handling. How can an unstable block be the recommended approach? I've also seen questions about whether woody is stable and being answered with "Yes". If so, it shouldn't be marked as unstable and things should be locked down.
This is somewhat off-topic from my previous post but, as I've said before, we have looked at woody and have not made the move yet - we are still using the simple forms stuff. We like what we see, but so much of the examples documentation is geared towards flow that we have a hard time separating the two. We won't be using flowscript so we really need "Cocoon Forms" to be completely separate from it. The major stumbling block was in the areas of Woody Bindings - the only provided solution seems to require flowscript. I'm sure I'll revisit this and perhaps provide the solution when it pops to the top of my list of things to do. Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Woody scratchpad area On 12.02.2004 22:04, Ralph Goers wrote: > Frankly, I don't believe Woody should have been in 2.1 as a block - it > should have been in the scratchpad. The number of fundamental changes that > have been made to it clearly indicate that it wasn't stable when 2.1.0 was > released. It should never be tolerated that something that is "released" > (i.e. in core or in a block) is allowed to have its interface or fundamental > behavior change from one minor release to the next. It could have been > moved from the scratchpad into a block at a minor release when it was deemed > ready. IMO you are wrong here to a certain extend. We introduced the blocks to have development independent on the core. Therefore we also introduced the status of a block, which can be stable, unstable or deprecated at the moment (see the gump descriptor in the Cocoon root dir). This gump descriptor is transformed into the file blocks.properties with the hint on stable and unstable (but all are included by default). But at latest at build time you get a warning about the status if it is unstable and what it means. So IMO nobody can complain about any changes for an unstable block. Joerg
