mmh, ok i didn't understood all the differences for what a OSGi-based
cocoon is useful yet. But i think it would be a pity not to call it
cocoon. In the end is there only the OSGi-based version of cocoon? Or
are there two different versions? In the first case cocoon 3 sounds
reasonable, and all 2.x versions are more or less maintenance-releases
which could be released also after a 3.0 version. In the latter case a
new name would be better. cocoon 1 and cocoon 2 are two quite different
things too, but both called cocoon.
I use cocoon since years in the meanwhile and i loved it from all the
beginning. I'am one of the guys who is writing more xml than java.
Boris
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Poetz schrieb:
<hat type="neutral" mode="on">
Since the GT in Amsterdam, when Daniel used "Cocoon 3.0" for his proposal of an
OSGi based Cocoon, we have been talking about Cocoon 3.0 in different ways. For
example in the meantime Sylvain used "Cocoon 3.0" as the subject of the
discussion that he started in December.
While working with Daniel in April we used "Cocoon 3.0" as a name for our
vision of an OSGi-based Cocoon. The point is that the vision has become reality
in the meantime[1] and the number of open tasks (see JIRA
http://tinyurl.com/rubss) is manageable.
What I want is that we agree on a name for OSGi based Cocoon within the
Cocoon community, either "Cocoon 3.0" or a code name. We also have to take into
account that trunk might also be released as Cocoon 2.3.
WDOT, should we use "Cocoon 3.0" for OSGi based Cocoon or find a code name and
tag it with a release number when we are close to our first milestone/alpha
release?
</hat>
I don't know if "3.0" is a good "name" or not, but I would really
appreciate it if we try to release a 2.2/2.3 before a 3.0!
Carsten
