On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 13:41:16 +0200, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > >Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > > > >>They already live together! > >> > > > >Ok, but what I want is: > > > > 1) merge 'schecoon' with the trunk > > > > 2) have the ability to mount a 'flowmap' into a 'sitemap' and a > >'sitemap' into a 'flowmap'. > > > >Until I have this, they are not living together in my book. Um, I can see how a sitemap can make use of a flow script, but what does it mean for a flow script to "mount" a flow script? Right now when a flow script wants to generate a response page, it just passes the control to the sitemap which renders the output page. The only change to the sitemap contract is that the flow script adds two more attributes to the Environment object: one which represents the business object data whose attributes can be queried during generation phase, and the continuation object, which can be asked for its identifier, to be placed in links or form action that want to come back. > >Now, I'll be in favor of 'branching the CVS module' to keep the '2.0.x' > >series clean and start moving stuff from the scratchpad into the trunk > >and name that 2.1-dev > > > >I want more visibility for what currently lies in the scratchpad because > >I think that currently Schecoon is an 'internal fork' and I personally > >don't consider it *working* in Cocoon until the two things are merged > >together. > > > >What do you think? > > > > I think there's been a long time since you looked at what's in > scratchpad/schecoon ;) > > Seriously : schecoon *was* a kind of internal fork when it was a > scheme-only reimplementation of the sitemap engine. But Ovidiu has > rewrote the whole thing since there are continuations in Rhino. It's now > "just" a couple of new components and treeprocessor nodes. Integration > with the main trunk requires only a few lines to be added to > cocoon.roles and treeprocessor-builtins.xml ! I agree with Sylvain here. Schecoon is now completely redesigned and it's a very simple task to merge it in the main trunk. Having said that, I think we can keep things simple if we merge directly on the main branch. And rather than creating a branch for the 2.1 release, I think it's better if we create a branch for the 2.0.x release, which should allow us to fix bugs and make minor releases. This way people doing development and casual expert users get exposed to the new things without having to do any magic with CVS. Also, before merging Schecoon on the main trunk, I'd like to fix some bugs, the most important being the ExcaliburComponentManager, which prevents the code from running :-( Regards, -- Ovidiu Predescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/ (GNU, Emacs, other stuff) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
