Gianugo Rabellino wrote: <snip type="big"/>
> Mind you, having some strong business interests in terms of existing > projects with Cocoon 2, I shouldn't really be this much shouting about > moving on in possibly incompatible ways: if I've been repeating from > months now that we need a 3.0 (remember AC EU?), this is because I > think that without a clear step forward, all we can do are small steps > solving our self-induced problems while the world is clearly moving to > different solutions and scenarios. The Cocoon community has never been > a (late) follower as we risk of being now: if shaking the tree helps > regaining momentum, then I'm all for an open discussion about it. I think what Gianugo says here is really important. Yes, I think we do need to be thinking about 3.0 in a radical new way, we do have too many self-imposed problems to solve in our current generation. But at the same time, the majority if not all of us have investments in 2.x based technologies. If someone handed us a complete 3.0 implementation today, it'd surely take us all some time before we'd switch, whether in recoding our apps, or retraining our staff, or whatever. So we need to work out how 2.2 and 3.0 play together. We need to get 2.2 out. I for one need it. But 2.2 is going to make life _much_ easier for people who are _already_ using Cocoon. We need something that is going to bring in significant new blood. So, 2.2 = important, and 3.0 = important. Both. We need to avoid discussions, implications, emotions, etc that suggest otherwise. We need to give the message to our existing users that their code will be supported for a long time, that it is still safe to continue using 2.1/2.2. After all, we will all ourselves have code using it for a long time, much like some of us probably have code running that still uses Cocoon 1.X. Any project will need to be 'revisioned' at times. Take the delightful 'Visual Basic', VB6 is incompatible with VB7. Sometimes it just needs to be done. That didn't stop people using VB6, at least not immediately (unfortunately for them ;-) ). So, no-one is offending anyone else by suggesting 3.0. Anyone shouting about 3.0 also likely needs 2.2 for their businesses to continue to function in the time until someone actually implements 3.0, and probably for some significant time after. Let's get 2.2 out, and let's continue to mull on the nature of 3.0, and thank you to Sylvain for restarting the discussion. Regards, Upayavira
