Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Marc Portier wrote: > > > Carsten, > > > > Thx. This extra explanation on dywel added onto the understanding I > > already had (important nuances noted) > > > >>> not trivial, maybe possible, useful? > >> > >> > >> Hmm, I'm a little unsure. Now, I don't want to destroy the design of > >> woody only to make me happy. If it makes sense, to change woody: > >> great. If it doesn't, well, then I can live with that as well. It's a > >> decision I'm currently not able to make or contribute to. > > > > I'm not sure Woody's design has to be destroyed to include Dywel's way > of binding. With the upcoming separate datatype and format catalogues, > it would be possible to write an implementation that builds the datatype > catalogue using introspection. > > Same applies to binding : there can be another implementation of the > binding. Sounds good!
> > > > The resemblence is a great way IMO to realize none of us is completely > > on the wrong track, but it can't prevent the different alternatives to > > take specific differentiating positions that will make them more > > elegant to use in very specific situations. > > > > Woody has everything in it to grow into a system that can handle your > > bean backends equally well as pure XML backends given the loose > > connection ideas to be found everywhere in the design... > > > > There surely is the commitment (effort currently going on if you ask > > me) to ensure that specific broadly recognised usage models could get > > a simplified mapping onto the current Woody-soc... > > > Yep. Woody is currently able to map to XML and JavaBean backends, which > should already cover many of the needs. Another need I foresee is direct > mapping to an SQL backend. > This sounds a little bit like mixing concerns, but let's see how it comes out. > > but rest assured: none of that effort will ever ensure that in a given > > case there could not be a more specific implementation that will be > > able to cut some corners and provide a more elegant solution. > > > > The above statement probably fits to a large extend to what Cocoon as > > a whole is providing. (and how it is sometimes perceived) > > > > In any case, thx for your input, it already added some nice features > > into the woody-basket (and possibly touching woody returned you some > > of the favor). > > > > I hope you can continue the effort of feeding us your progress > on Dywel. > > > Yes, please. And keep following the work on Woody. You may find that it > is able to host your ideas as particular implementations of one of its > components. > Yes, of course I will do both. And I thank you all for trying to explain Woody to me and to see how dywel and woody might fit together. Perhaps we will see at a later time when both things will be used how the real implementation should look like (perhaps for Cocoon 3.1). Thanks Carsten
