Reinhard Pötz wrote: > The feedback of our student group was rather the opposite. I'm pretty > sure that it helps to understand Cocoon 3 if all different pipeline > component implementations follow the same logic. Hmm, ok, I don't think so, so let's just agree that we disagree here.
> But of course my "survey" isn't really scientific ... I haven't even done a survey but just did test myself :) From the past I know that many people were confused by all the interfaces and abstract classes we had in Cocoon 2.x, but maybe that's different with a new C3. > I'm not fully convinced yet. I will have a look at it again when I can > apply the patch and can build Cocoon. I have some (internal) code that > uses cocoon-sax and I want to understand all effects. Apart from the stax stuff, it builds (at least for me) and the tests run. I'll add a second patch which fixes the stax stuff. > I'm also preparing a project proposal (GSoC, Vienna-based student > groups) about "Cocoon profiling" which relies on Spring AOP and I have > to think about the influence of not having SAXConsumer and SAXProducer > anymore. Hmm, I think this should still be possible. Now, to be honest, I find the whole situation not very comfortable at the moment. There are only a few contributing to C3 and nearly no other comments. My intention is to have a small, nice and easy, pipeline api which allows me to build sax pipelines. And I want to have as less dependencies and as less stuff in their to make it understandable as possible. I don't think that the symmetrie to the other implementations helps us. But that's of course my personal opinion. I think we (Steven, you, the Vienna-based students and myself) have a opinion and I guess it is based on/influenced by our experience and we are somehow stuck in our thinking. So it would be great if others could voice their opinion. Thanks Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
