Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Guys, remember the real-blocks container story? Two reasons led to the > choice of OSGi: there are existing implementations, and it stopped the > endless discussions about what the container API should be. > > We have exactly the same here. "why not this or that" and "I don't need > it but you can implement it" lead nowhere. NIH syndrome at work. > Cocoon's goal is not about containers, but about components. Cocoon was > one of the first component-oriented frameworks, but times have changed! > Yes, so why not throwing ECM++ away and use an existing container? We can provide an Avalon compatibility bridge for nearly any existing container. I don't want to build an own container in Cocoon, but currently using an existing one for the core has been veto'd several times, so we have to stick with ECM++. But making this more useful is also veto'd. Hmm. And as we can't come up with a good solution (being it using an existing container or improving our own), we simply tell the users to use whatever they think is right - as we don't know it.
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
