> From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Le Samedi, 20 sep 2003, à 14:15 Europe/Zurich, Stefano Mazzocchi a > écrit : > > > > On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 10:03 Europe/Rome, Bertrand Delacretaz > > wrote: > >> > >> ...Obviously - but still, do you want to let blocks access > all public > >> core classes openly? > > > > Why not? > > Making as little core classes available as possible will help in > decoupling blocks from the core. > > Java often forces you to make a class public so that it can > be accessed > from other packages, but in many cases this does not mean that the > class should be used everywhere. > > > >> Event if it's no needed right away, I think being able to > filter this > >> classloading from blocks to core should be planned for in > the design > >> (but maybe it is already?). > > > > The design doesn't need to specify this since it's a classloading > > implementation issue. > > you're right, this does not need to be decided at this point.
you are right, so only for the records ;) Maybe we can go the "FOM" way. We reduce the public available classes to a minimum and so also reduce the possible contracts to a minimum. But it is not only Cocoon classes. There are also a few classes in libraries which are necessary in a block (see avalon-framework, excalibur-sourceresolve, excalibur-store, excalibur-xmlutil) Reinhard
