Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom schrieb:
From the discussions last week with Reinhard, Daniel and Upayavira I
think using block.xml to generate everything else was the consensus. See
"role of block.xml" in http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/Blockathon2005Report
Hmm, was I really part of that concensus? Like Sylvain I prefer to use
the OSGi manifest for everything that can be described by that and the
block.xml for the rest.
Now, IIUC, the rest of you think that such a solution would be
unpractical because of overlap with gump, compile and deploy time
dependency descriptors etc. You might very well be right about that, but
I prefer to wait and see until we actually start to implement it before
we decide.
I prefer a single source of information about a block: the block.xml -
we can then generate everything else out of. This would also keep us
independent from OSGi.
But you're we can start in any way and then change it later on. For
converting an xml to another xml we just need a stylesheet anyway.
Yes. To change isn't hard. And, I think experience will guide us. Is it
more important to be able to use standard OSGi bundles within Cocoon, or
to have Cocoon bundles work outside of Cocoon itself, or to have a
Cocoon 'block' as being something that has, from a developer's point of
view, nothing specifically to do with OSGi.
And these questions we should be able to answer a little further down
the road.
Regards, Upayavira
