Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > Le 7 avr. 04, à 11:33, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit : > > > >> ...Exactly my point :) But the current idea of blocks is to only > >> retain this possibility inside a sandbox which means it > can't be used "inside" > >> blocks. So if I develop my app as a block, I can't use these > >> components inside my app!... > > > > > > I thought the idea was to provide an ECM-like sandbox > *inside* a block > > (reading Stefano's last message on this thread), in which > case you can > > use your Avalon components inside a Cocoon block, but they > cannot be > > made available to other blocks. > > > > But I might be wrong.. > > Bertrand is right and Carsten is freaking out for no reason. Oh, if you think that I'm "freaking out" than you never really saw me freaking out - believe me!
> > Carsten, please, breath and read what I write. > > You don't have hotdeployment today so you won't be missing it > for sure in your avalon sandbox, would you? Yepp. > > If you have two blocks in the avalon sandbox, you could share > them between them, but there is no (easy? elegant?) way you > can pass them arond *OUTSIDE* the sandbox and still allow > blocks to be hotswappable and runtime polymorphic. Ok, so here is the different understanding. My understanding was that the avalon sandbox is *one big block* and not a sandbox I can run blocks in. Sorry that I misunderstood the previous explanations. So, if this is true, we *could* go this way. Although I and some others here still don't see any technical problems. But time will tell of course. > <SNIP/> > > -- > Stefano, wishing people didn't think that innovation always > means breaking stuff. > Carsten - trying to keep the discussion technical.
