On 11.11.2004 10:32, beyaNet wrote:

I have asked this question before, and i'm going to again, if we have flow/jxt why xsp? If I was a new user what I would wanted see is fir direction as to which architecture to use within cocoon and why. When I first started using cocoon i used xsp as that was what I saw in all the documentation, until I discovered flow/jxt, and then thought well why I have I been doing that to myself!

Adding new stuff to Cocoon we rarely claim to provide the new best way of doing something. We have many templating technologies in Cocoon, but none of them is called the best. We let it to the user to decide - which might be overexerting for new users. Another point on this is that flow/jxt can just not do everything XSP can, e.g. the SQL stuff. We know it is not even that good handling database access in XSPs, but we can not provide *that* alternative. Not everybody wants to have an extra persistence layer. We discussed about this when already: Can we deprecate XSP because we have JXT and OJB for example. And no, we can not, as somebody might want the simplicity of XSP.


The form frameworks were an exception of this rule. We had XMLForms, JXForms, Precept, etc. and got additionally Woody. It was clear Woody/now CForms was technically better and could replace all the other form frameworks - technically and from community points. Just the "simple form" stuff still exists besides CForms - for people who want simplicity again.

To bring this technology into 70% struts commercial market, issues like MVC and the like need to be brought to the for, and I can't see where xsp stands in all this.

Cocoon is not just a MVC framework like Struts, it is an application framework. MVC is well-known and recognized - but it's not perfect. Also Cocoon has much more use cases. So should Cocoon jump on the buzz word train? I would not feel happy with it.


Joerg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to