> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Peter Donald wrote: > > BTW - it may be best not to name them "Blocks". Phoenix > already has the notion > > of blocks which is vastly different from what Cocoon > proposes to use the term > > for. It would confusing to name two different concepts with > identical names. > > Given that Phoenix (and it's predecessor) has been using > the term since > > before I was involved in Avalon it may be best to rename > Cocoon blocks to > > something else so as to avoid confusion from users. > > Hmmm, why do you think they are 'vastly different'? it has > been shown on > cocoon-dev that Cocoon Block should extend Avalon Blocks and > I think it > would be very cool to be able to install a Cocoon block into, say, > Phoenix and having phoenix use the part of the blocks > semantics that is > avalon-oriented (say, use the component services, but not not > the sitemap) > > I thought the goal of Avalon 5 was to keep things moveable across > containers. Am I wrong?
Avalon 5 is not out yet. Of course you are right in saying that the goal of Avalon 5 is to keep things moveable. The process of smoothing out the differences between Phoenix Blocks and Cocoon Blocks has yet to be done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
