-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:36:19 +0100
From: Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RT] Simplifying component handling
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Guys, remember the real-blocks container story? Two reasons led to the
choice of OSGi: there are existing implementations, and it stopped the
endless discussions about what the container API should be.
We have exactly the same here. "why not this or that" and "I don't need
it but you can implement it" lead nowhere. NIH syndrome at work.
Cocoon's goal is not about containers, but about components. Cocoon was
one of the first component-oriented frameworks, but times have changed!
Yes, so why not throwing ECM++ away and use an existing container? We
can provide an Avalon compatibility bridge for nearly any existing
container.
ATM I do see this as a valuable way to go.
- - Declare our legacy Avalon components being the "bridged" ones
- - Start using an existing container
- - Migrate the legacy stuff over
I don't want to build an own container in Cocoon, but
currently using an existing one for the core has been veto'd several
times, so we have to stick with ECM++. But making this more useful is
also veto'd. Hmm. And as we can't come up with a good solution (being it
using an existing container or improving our own), we simply tell the
users to use whatever they think is right - as we don't know it.
That's a deadlock.
- --
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDu81uLNdJvZjjVZARAtZRAJ0fENxt8LZVH4HV6Vz2OBAxPqACZQCg0xLo
aOPmX3dXq2pWKm8FTaic5ko=
=DweB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
