On Thursday 14 October 2004 16:47, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Furthermore, there is something one could call a > > Request Cycle contract, the sitemap processing interfaces and the various > > XML chaining interfaces.
> >And that is probably the main reason why the Fortress > >effort 'stalled' ; Cocoon is so much more than dependency+conf injection. > > Let me strongly disagree on this point. The Fortress effort stalled > because the sitemap engine (aka treeprocessor) was intimately tied to > some of the features of the ECM. The design choices of the container had > slipped through into the component code. I am the culprit on this point. I must be dumb, but isn't this what I said? Cocoon has expanded ECM, through the sitemap interaction, hence the Cocoon contract encompass much more than 'traditional life cycle" that Fortress was built to provide. But never mind the difference. Being a die-hard Avalon supporter, I am all in favour of progress, but for the right reasons. Swapping ECM/Fortress for Spring/Pico doesn't change anything fundamentally. Only creates a lot of work for no immediate benefit. The real challenge as someone pointed out, is the classloading management to support "real blocks". THAT is worth an effort, all IMHO of course. Cheers Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.bali.ac / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+
