On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:54:12 +0000, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Hunsberger wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:05:21 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Ralph Goers wrote: > >> > >>>Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
<snip/> > >>>I'd like to hear why you think cforms should not be a block. > >> > >>Because having it as a block makes it really hard to answer the > >>question: what is cocoon and what does it provide me. > >> > >>I think it's useful to have a list of things that cocoon comes with and > >>a form handling framework is something that *must* be part of the core. > > > > > > Please no. We don't need cForms for our work. Other people may not > > need it either. > > > > Having it in a block doesn't somehow remove it from Cocoon. You can > > still tell people that Cocoon has built in forms capabilities and you > > can make it very easy for people to get them. However, bundling > > cFroms into the core makes the opposite much harder. > > And this is why, in association with Reinhard, I have started talking > about "core blocks". These blocks will be documented within the core > documentation of Cocoon, not within the blocks themselves. This is > precisely for the reasons Stefano gives - it will give the impression > that it is an integral part of Cocoon, not a bolt-on. However, going a > bit deeper, you'll find that forms is implemented as a block. > > I would even go a bit further - once we've got our blocks system fully > in place, we could have two distributions - core and complete. Core just > includes the core and the core blocks, and complete contains them all. > That way, anyone who wants Cocoon, but doesn't want any of these 'core > blocks' can quite easily remove them from their webapp - but they're in > the distribution by default, always. > > That's my thoughts on the subject. +1 Sounds good to me. I'd almost want three distributions: "minimal" (no blocks at all), "default" (or core) and "complete". I'm one of those people that when I install a piece of software almost always ends up selecting the "custom" installation option so I can pick and choose what I want instead of using someone else's preconceived notion of what I want... However, in this case, if it's easy to remove blocks I don't see any real issue. -- Peter Hunsberger
