Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Paul Crabtree wrote:
Hi, i've just finished quite a large cocoon site using 2.1.7 with
Forms V3. We choose this version for two reasons:
1. At the time i couldnt find much info on the different versions or
why they were there so assumed V3 meant it was more mature and the
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I personally don't use v2 nor v3. People using it are invited to
speak up!
You answered the question in your summary of the last year GT
Hackathon discussion about cforms
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109774752401800&w=2)
yo
Paul Crabtree wrote:
Hi, i've just finished quite a large cocoon site using 2.1.7 with
Forms V3. We choose this version for two reasons:
1. At the time i couldnt find much info on the different versions or
why they were there so assumed V3 meant it was more mature and the
latest.
Well, yes
Hi, i've just finished quite a large cocoon site using 2.1.7 with
Forms V3. We choose this version for two reasons:
1. At the time i couldnt find much info on the different versions or
why they were there so assumed V3 meant it was more mature and the
latest.
2. showForm() in V3 offers the abilit
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I personally don't use v2 nor v3. People using it are invited to speak up!
You answered the question in your summary of the last year GT Hackathon
discussion about cforms
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109774752401800&w=2) yourself:
[...]
- don't us
Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Jun 9, 2005, at 1:48 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I personally don't use v2 nor v3. People using it are invited to speak
up!
I have a few Cocoon projects, and I use v2 in all but one of them (the
oldest one)!
Can you give a short explanation on the reasons for using
On Jun 9, 2005, at 1:48 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I personally don't use v2 nor v3. People using it are invited to speak
up!
I have a few Cocoon projects, and I use v2 in all but one of them (the
oldest one)!
cheers, :-)
—ml—
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I could give it a shot but I have no deeper knowledge of cocoon.xconf
syntax in this case. Do we have to make every widget a component? That
doesn't feel right.
Nono, what I'm talking about is the various subcontainers that exist in
CForms, such as and
and move on
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
The main points to achieve stable state are:
1 - remove v2 and v3 apis
I assume there are some features that we would like to port back to
v1. Could we identify them?
I personally don't use v2 nor v3. People using it are invited to speak up!
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Leszek Gawron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 5 - flatten the configuration to allow for easier extension with the
> > xconf include mechanism in 2.2
> I could give it a shot but I have no deeper knowledge of cocoon.xconf
> syntax in this case. Do we hav
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:
Yes, I agree. The question still remains as to who's itch is
irritating enough. I also agree that if Cocoon is going to have a
small core, that ultimately will consist of CForms, JXTemplate (or
CTemplate?) and, well, core, then it needs to marked stable
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
The bottom line is you cannot have code sitting around forever telling
people its great but you have to use it at your own risk cause we
might change it anytime we feel like it. This has just been going on
for far too long. The code is never going
Ben Pope wrote:
Yes, I agree. The question still remains as to who's itch is irritating
enough. I also agree that if Cocoon is going to have a small core, that
ultimately will consist of CForms, JXTemplate (or CTemplate?) and, well,
core, then it needs to marked stable ASAP. As far as I can
Ralph Goers wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:
You might as well just throw away all semantics, I doubt there are
many people here who want to release something whose API they know
will change, and then have to support it. With all due respect, you've
been around here long enough to know that you have t
Ralph Goers wrote:
The bottom line is you cannot have code sitting around forever telling
people its great but you have to use it at your own risk cause we
might change it anytime we feel like it. This has just been going on
for far too long. The code is never going to be perfect.
I hea
Ralph Goers wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:
It makes very little sense to mark it stable without it actually being
what is generally considered (by this community) as stable.
You might as well just throw away all semantics, I doubt there are
many people here who want to release something whose API t
Ben Pope wrote:
It makes very little sense to mark it stable without it actually being
what is generally considered (by this community) as stable.
You might as well just throw away all semantics, I doubt there are
many people here who want to release something whose API they know
will ch
Ralph Goers wrote:
The problem is that we are recommending (and have been recommending)
CForms as our forms framework for a long time. Even if you haven't
marked it stable, it already should be, based upon those recommendations.
Yes, in an ideal world the API would be fixed, but it seems this
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
The current situation is that the implementation (runs in many
projects) and the community (large developer and user community) are
stable, but the interfaces are *not*. I tried to express this with the
hypothetical block descriptor fragment:
I don't want to mark Co
Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
We have a project that needs to use a forms framework that is more
advanced than what SimpleForms provides. However, it is difficult on
selling cforms simply because they are marked unstable. What is it
going to take to
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
We have a project that needs to use a forms framework that is more
advanced than what SimpleForms provides. However, it is difficult on
selling cforms simply because they are marked unstable. What is it
going to take to mark it stable in 2.1.8
Le 6 juin 05, à 20:44, Ralph Goers a écrit :
...Frankly, given the number of folks who appear to be using cforms
already, and since this list has been recommending it for the last
year, we should probably be treating it as stable now...
It is certainly stable as in "working reliably". What's
On Mar, 7 de Junio de 2005, 0:33, Reinhard Poetz dijo:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>> We have a project that needs to use a forms framework that is more
>> advanced than what SimpleForms provides. However, it is difficult on
>> selling cforms simply because they are marked unstable. What is it
>> going
Ralph Goers wrote:
We have a project that needs to use a forms framework that is more
advanced than what SimpleForms provides. However, it is difficult on
selling cforms simply because they are marked unstable. What is it
going to take to mark it stable in 2.1.8? Can we simply identify the
We have a project that needs to use a forms framework that is more
advanced than what SimpleForms provides. However, it is difficult on
selling cforms simply because they are marked unstable. What is it
going to take to mark it stable in 2.1.8? Can we simply identify the
known bugs in bugzil
25 matches
Mail list logo
