Gav ... wrote: > Thanks for popping in and giving this update. This post along with David's > Sees me swinging towards taking a better look at Cocoon, what more it has > To offer that we have not yet utilised, and improving on what we already > Have.
I would urge you to hesitate before you swing :-) for three reasons: 1. We have not yet seen Ross' prototype implementation. Even as a prototype it might provide grounds to further consider it as an option. 2. We have not yet heard from Thorsten He might just provide us with a perspective not yet presented. 3. It is my impression that the Forrest users can be partitioned into those with Cocoon skills and those lacking them. It seems that folks most inclined to give Cocoon the benefit of the doubt tend to be those with Cocoon skills. I think we might want to discuss weather or not we feel that Cocoon skills should be a prerequisite for non-trivial usage of Forrest. > I was of the mind before that I didn't much care whether Cocoon stays or > Goes, but I'm thinking now we should at least take another good look at it. Is this not what we are doing as part of our current discussion? I am certain you will agree that unneeded complexity in a resource drain and significantly inhibits progress. Currently, one needs to get up to speed with Cocoon before it is possible to do non trivial things with Forrest and IMO this is not a good thing. If we feel that the dependence of Forrest on Cocoon should be maintained then maybe we should indeed consider turning Forrest into a Cocoon component of some kind. However, unless we can insure that advanced Forrest usage does not require the Forrest user to be a skilled Cocoon user I think we should depend less on Cocoon and not more. So, do we feel that Cocoon skills should be a prerequisite for non-trivial usage of Forrest? Kind regards, Maurice -- No pare, sigue, sigue
