Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El lun, 14-08-2006 a las 20:59 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió:
This is a Random Thought. The ideas contained within are not fully
developed and are bound to have lots of holes. The idea is to promote
healthy discussion, so please, everyone, dive in and discuss.
Just some quick remarks.
Is our focus on framework or on implementation for the new trunk?
I'm not sure I understand you question, I'll take a stab at it though...
I see the possible new branch being a complete implementation of Forrest
as it currently stands (i.e. with a CLI, with in place editing and with
a WAR distribution). This would be built on a new framework that
replaces Cocoon.
The Drawbacks
=============
What are the drawbacks of getting rid of Cocoon?
Probably the biggest drawback would be that we have to code it. There's
not a huge amount of work to be done, but there are some neat things in
Cocoon that we would have to reimplement or find elsewhere. We may be
able to extract some of the code from Cocoon, but I'm not convinced this
is a good approach.
Because of this need to write the code it will mean that Forrest would
initially take a step backwards in terms of its functionality.
The other thing is that the existing community is right now pretty much
cocoon orientate. Dropping cocoon in 2.x can have the side effect that
the current community *may* loose interest in forrest (cocoon have been
a big selling point in the past).
The critical question is, how many people (as devs) can we attract to
join the rewrite dropping cocoon, taking a step back in functionality,
focusing on java for new components?
How many committer and devs will work on branch, how many on trunk, how
many on both?
I hope to see a healthy discussion, which will give some leads regarding
above questions.
This is very important, thanks for highlighting it.
I'd like to ask how many developers here do anything other than write
XML and XSLT in Forrest?
How many actually use Forrest in an environemnt where it is doing
anything more than building a website?
I'd suggest that the thing to do is ensure that we support the building
of simple websites quickly in order to quickly support what I suspect is
the vast majority of our users.
Ross
