It is highly unlikely that the project I am working on will use 2.2 as we have to be in production early next year and a significant amount of work has already been done.
I am very much in favor of continuing to add new features to 2.1 (such as the patch I just submitted), especially when they are completely binary compatible. I believe 2.1 has a long life ahead of it. Frankly, I'd prefer that the current 2.2 become 3.0 and the incompatible changes go into a new 2.2. It is my impression that what is now in 2.2 is going to end up being quite different from 2.1 and that it should not just be a point release. This would allow me to migrate to stay on 2.1 and maintain binary compatibility, move to 2.2 at the risk of minor incompatibilities, or move up to 3.0 where major differences happen. I realize there is a risk with this, as nobody really likes to maintain two releases at one time, so 2.1 is likely to stagnate. Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:06 AM To: Cocoon-Dev Subject: Continue Development of 2.1.x The development of blocks for 2.2 has started, but as others have already pointed out, it might take time to get it implemented and running well. So, I would suggest that we change our development plan a little bit and consider adding those features to our 2.1.x code base that are independent from blocks, like e.g. the virtual sitemap components etc. Of course we should take care that the changes are not incompatible (apart from the one below :) ). WDYT? In addition I would like to "port back" the changes I made to the environment handling in 2.2 to 2.1.x as they improve the performance and clean up some hacks (not all :( ) we have in the code. And this would also make Leo's wish regarding the CocoonComponentManager easier. Unfortunately these changes are not 100% compatible: the o.a.c.Processor and the o.a.c.e.Environment interfaces have to change for this. But this shouldn't effect users, so it should be ok to change it. Is this ok? As a last note, my rewritten tree processor is growing (it's not feature complete yet), but I think it is very soon able to process all features of the sitemap and adding such things like virtual components shouldn't be that hard (hopefully). Carsten Carsten Ziegeler Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
