On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 11:39 Europe/Rome, Steven Noels wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
<snip type="happy agreement"/>
I tried to address this issue several times in the last weeks, well, without much success.
One thing I want to stress again: *if* we would make a new repository
for 2.2 and duplicate all code, this would include the blocks as well.
So we would not only end up with the two versions to maintain for the core
but for each and every block as well! And this makes imho no sense. It's ok for the core, if we say 2.1 is only bug-fixing from now on. But it makes absolutely no sense for blocks. I think the development of blocks should be independent from the
development of the core. With duplicating the code we loose this.
So, whatever we decide, I'm -1 on duplicating the block code.
My problem with the blocks code is that reusing the 2.1 blocks code would force people to make blocks upwards-compatible, slowing down transitioning between old- and new-style blocks.
During the Hackathon on the 6th, I will be busy with GT preparations, so I won't be able to participate much with the discussions. :-( Anyway, please be assured that Bruno and I discussed the aspect of compatibility at length, and IIRC Bruno has been jotting down notes for this bound-to-be-happening IRL discussion. I don't think that we can 1) require 2.2 compatibility by all blocks, since some of them are only worked on by a few people, and 2) we should hinder progress on 2.2 blocks by requiring them to be stuck in the 2.1 repository. I know that we will try and do our best to keep the 2.1 version of Woody in a sane state after 2.2 development starts, most probably also backporting new things that happen along the 2.2 'branch'. Still, we want a freeway for 2.2 development, should the need arise.
Does that help? Or do I misunderstand your view on this matter?
A few points:
1) there is no *block* code in cocoon 2.1, everything is done by the builder.
2) blocks in 2.1 and blocks in 2.2 are a single block.xml file away.
This shows that it's entirely possible to implement real blocks in the cocoon-2.1 module, would we wish to do so
-- Stefano.
