You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2004/03/19 07:53:50 UTC
[Vote] The right container for 2.2
As you already may have noticed, the Avalon community has a new
roadmap and has a common sense about their future.
This roadmap includes: burying ECM (which is deprecated anyway),
burying Fortress and burying most of the Excalibur stuff in the
long term. The goal is to have one single container which is
Merlin (or based on Merlin).
**NOTE**
Please, if you want to discuss the future of Avalon or if you think
that this decision is not good or not correct or whatever, don't use
this thread or the cocoon dev list. Go to the Avalon dev list please
and discuss it with the responsible community. Thanks
**END NOTE**
Now, we have a lot of experience with ECM. Some of us helped
developing it and we are using it for so long that there isn't
really a problem for us with ECM. So the 2.1.x line has no
problems with these decisions.
But for 2.2 this is a little bit problematic. We started with
the move to Fortress which is now officially dead. Unfortunately
the move is not finished and even if it would be finished,
we would be incompatible wrt to configuration to 2.1.x. So there
is imho a lot of work to do to get Fortress properly running
for us (note "for us", Fortress is running very well but not
that compatible to ECM configuration). So actually, there is
not much sense to continue this work as we have not much knowledge
of Fortress. We recently started digging into it.
On the other hand, we don't have any knowledge of Merlin now
and Merlin is currently not compatible to ECM (or more
precise to the configuration ECM uses). So moving to Merlin
would result in the same situation as moving to Fortress.
And in fact it would be more difficult for us as Merlin is different
from ECM/Fortress in it's design and implementation.
Our 2.2 release is not about using the best container available,
the release is about implementing blocks. This implementation
is container independent, so it shouldn't play a role what container
we use for blocks. In addition 2.2 is now independent of the
container implementation as well, so it doesn't play a role
for the 2.2 core. We could simply switch to any container if
it supports the old ECM configuration style to 100%.
So, it seems, the best way to move forward and get into blocks
development is to revert to ECM in 2.2 for now. This is a very
simple work as 2.2 is container independent. It would 2.2 make
immediately usable and compatible to 2.1.x and we could focus
our development effort on blocks - which is imho more important
than focusing it on container development.
If during blocks implementation the need for a better container
arises, we could switch simply to any container supporting
the ECM configuration style.
And: if noone volunteers, I can do the move to ECM over the weekend.
So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
this time. Thanks.
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler
Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>.
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 07:53, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
<snip/>
> So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
> this time. Thanks.
+1
both fortress and merlin have some attractive new features, but I agree
that currently we're better of staying with ECM.
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org bruno@apache.org
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
> this time. Thanks.
+1 to ECM.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
(Blogging at: http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>So, please cast your votes
>
+1 to revert to ECM.
As you said, this allows 2.2 development to go forward by making it a
least runnable. And if ever we find a better container on our way, we
can still make the change in an evolutionary way.
And as Bertrand suggested, we should plan to import the ECM code into
our repository, as we may also have to update it in the process (there
are a couple of changes I want to do to implement virtual components and
view inheritance).
BTW, thanks for writing a more-than-10-lines-post which you hate so much ;-P
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
RE: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Thanks for the info.
Now I think we will wait with reverting to ECM. Perhaps it makes
sense to first look at your stuff and see how/if it fits and then
do the appropriate work.
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:pier@betaversion.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:19 PM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
>
> +1 for reverting to ECM right now to have a more stable 2.2 base.
>
> On 19 Mar 2004, at 10:03, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> > Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 as this move shouldn't have any impact to Pier's
> container *if* we
> >> decide to use it.
>
> Will you guys stop spoiling surprises? :-( :-(
>
> > Yes, "*if*" is a good remark here.
>
> As a word of warning to the ones listening, I am developing a
> container implementing "blocks" in a way very-very-very
> similar to the Cocoon requirements to be used in my
> employer's web back-end (front end will be Cocoon 2.1 as-is).
>
> As I explained to some of you, I'm actively developing it for
> VNU right now, but I am shooting for a more "stable" release
> with implemented blocks for sometimes next week... More news
> to follow...
>
> >> It's up to you Carsten if you want to risk that ECM is
> replaced again
> >> in a few weeks.
> >
> > Thanks :) - But I don't have any problem with this.
>
> I think that if we want to implement "real" blocks, and if
> the container supports "real" blocks, the core problem won't
> be the container itself, but the infra-blocks contracts,
> especially related to class loading core in the VM and lookup
> issues as each block could be seen as a different "isolates".
>
> And those issues would be reflected on the implementation of
> the blocks, and their components, themselves...
>
> At least, that's my thought, and as I always say, I might be
> completely wrong.
>
> Pier
>
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
+1 for reverting to ECM right now to have a more stable 2.2 base.
On 19 Mar 2004, at 10:03, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>
>> +1 as this move shouldn't have any impact to Pier's container *if* we
>> decide to use it.
Will you guys stop spoiling surprises? :-( :-(
> Yes, "*if*" is a good remark here.
As a word of warning to the ones listening, I am developing a container
implementing "blocks" in a way very-very-very similar to the Cocoon
requirements to be used in my employer's web back-end (front end will
be Cocoon 2.1 as-is).
As I explained to some of you, I'm actively developing it for VNU right
now, but I am shooting for a more "stable" release with implemented
blocks for sometimes next week... More news to follow...
>> It's up to you Carsten if you want to risk
>> that ECM is
>> replaced again in a few weeks.
>
> Thanks :) - But I don't have any problem with this.
I think that if we want to implement "real" blocks, and if the
container supports "real" blocks, the core problem won't be the
container itself, but the infra-blocks contracts, especially related to
class loading core in the VM and lookup issues as each block could be
seen as a different "isolates".
And those issues would be reflected on the implementation of the
blocks, and their components, themselves...
At least, that's my thought, and as I always say, I might be completely
wrong.
Pier
RE: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>
> +1 as this move shouldn't have any impact to Pier's container *if* we
> decide to use it.
Yes, "*if*" is a good remark here.
> It's up to you Carsten if you want to risk
> that ECM is
> replaced again in a few weeks.
>
Thanks :) - But I don't have any problem with this.
Carsten
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>As you already may have noticed, the Avalon community has a new
>roadmap and has a common sense about their future.
>This roadmap includes: burying ECM (which is deprecated anyway),
>burying Fortress and burying most of the Excalibur stuff in the
>long term. The goal is to have one single container which is
>Merlin (or based on Merlin).
>**NOTE**
>Please, if you want to discuss the future of Avalon or if you think
>that this decision is not good or not correct or whatever, don't use
>this thread or the cocoon dev list. Go to the Avalon dev list please
>and discuss it with the responsible community. Thanks
>**END NOTE**
>
>Now, we have a lot of experience with ECM. Some of us helped
>developing it and we are using it for so long that there isn't
>really a problem for us with ECM. So the 2.1.x line has no
>problems with these decisions.
>
>But for 2.2 this is a little bit problematic. We started with
>the move to Fortress which is now officially dead. Unfortunately
>the move is not finished and even if it would be finished,
>we would be incompatible wrt to configuration to 2.1.x. So there
>is imho a lot of work to do to get Fortress properly running
>for us (note "for us", Fortress is running very well but not
>that compatible to ECM configuration). So actually, there is
>not much sense to continue this work as we have not much knowledge
>of Fortress. We recently started digging into it.
>
>On the other hand, we don't have any knowledge of Merlin now
>and Merlin is currently not compatible to ECM (or more
>precise to the configuration ECM uses). So moving to Merlin
>would result in the same situation as moving to Fortress.
>And in fact it would be more difficult for us as Merlin is different
>from ECM/Fortress in it's design and implementation.
>
>Our 2.2 release is not about using the best container available,
>the release is about implementing blocks. This implementation
>is container independent, so it shouldn't play a role what container
>we use for blocks. In addition 2.2 is now independent of the
>container implementation as well, so it doesn't play a role
>for the 2.2 core. We could simply switch to any container if
>it supports the old ECM configuration style to 100%.
>
>So, it seems, the best way to move forward and get into blocks
>development is to revert to ECM in 2.2 for now. This is a very
>simple work as 2.2 is container independent. It would 2.2 make
>immediately usable and compatible to 2.1.x and we could focus
>our development effort on blocks - which is imho more important
>than focusing it on container development.
>If during blocks implementation the need for a better container
>arises, we could switch simply to any container supporting
>the ECM configuration style.
>
>And: if noone volunteers, I can do the move to ECM over the weekend.
>
>So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
>this time. Thanks.
>
>
>Carsten
>
+1 as this move shouldn't have any impact to Pier's container *if* we
decide to use it. It's up to you Carsten if you want to risk that ECM is
replaced again in a few weeks.
--
Reinhard
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
>> So, it seems, the best way to move forward and get into blocks
>> development is to revert to ECM in 2.2 for now. This is a very
>> simple work as 2.2 is container independent. It would 2.2 make
>> immediately usable and compatible to 2.1.x and we could focus
>> our development effort on blocks - which is imho more important
>> than focusing it on container development.
...from what I remember from the discussion, ECM was
not very well suited for the whole blocks implementation.
So I do see this issue related.
I don't really know if reverting will get us somewhere we
want to be. But in fact Fortress seems not to be a smart
choice anymore.
I'd prefer to see where we are going before going anywhere.
So I am currently -0 for reverting to ECM
Eager to see what Pier and Stefano will bring up
--
Torsten
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>So, it seems, the best way to move forward and get into blocks
>development is to revert to ECM in 2.2 for now. This is a very
>simple work as 2.2 is container independent. It would 2.2 make
>immediately usable and compatible to 2.1.x and we could focus
>our development effort on blocks - which is imho more important
>than focusing it on container development.
>If during blocks implementation the need for a better container
>arises, we could switch simply to any container supporting
>the ECM configuration style.
>
>
+1 for reverting to ECM
--
Unico
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Mar 19, 2004, at 1:53 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> And: if noone volunteers, I can do the move to ECM over the weekend.
>
> So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
> this time. Thanks.
+1, flip back to ECM.
-pete
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
<snip/>
> But just out of curiosity, wasn't the move to Fortress for 2.2 somehow
> dictated by the fact that ECM wasn't considered able to support real
> blocks?
Nothing that I'm aware of. IIRC, this was mostly because ECM was
deprecated and because of improvements in pool management.
> Or is my memory failing me?
Maybe mine also ;-)
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Our 2.2 release is not about using the best container available,
> the release is about implementing blocks. This implementation
> is container independent, so it shouldn't play a role what container
> we use for blocks. In addition 2.2 is now independent of the
> container implementation as well, so it doesn't play a role
> for the 2.2 core. We could simply switch to any container if
> it supports the old ECM configuration style to 100%.
<snip/>
> So, please cast your votes - and please, now flame wars about Avalon
> this time. Thanks.
+1. I'm trusting your judgment here, since I'm not familiar enough with
Avalon to have a different opinion.
But just out of curiosity, wasn't the move to Fortress for 2.2 somehow
dictated by the fact that ECM wasn't considered able to support real
blocks? Or is my memory failing me?
Ugo
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 19.03.2004 07:53, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> So, it seems, the best way to move forward and get into blocks
> development is to revert to ECM in 2.2 for now. This is a very
> simple work as 2.2 is container independent.
Good to hear.
> It would 2.2 make
> immediately usable and compatible to 2.1.x and we could focus
> our development effort on blocks - which is imho more important
> than focusing it on container development.
> If during blocks implementation the need for a better container
> arises, we could switch simply to any container supporting
> the ECM configuration style.
+1 back to ECM
> And: if noone volunteers, I can do the move to ECM over the weekend.
Even better :)
Thanks, Carsten.
Joerg
RE: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> +1 for reverting to ECM in 2.2
>
> Just a question, do we have to move the ECM code into our
> CVS, or will
> it still be available at Avalon if we need to make changes to it?
>
That's a good question - currently it is available, but I think they
want to delete it. So we should ask them. Good point!
> > ...and please, now flame wars about Avalon
> > this time. Thanks.
>
> Thanks Carsten for your explanations!
> (and I assume you mean "no flame wars", not "start flame wars now" ;-)
>
Argh, yes, yes, it should read "no flame wars about Avalon this time"
Thanks!
Carsten
Re: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Vendredi, 19 mars 2004, à 07:53 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a
écrit :
> ...So, please cast your votes -
+1 for reverting to ECM in 2.2
Just a question, do we have to move the ECM code into our CVS, or will
it still be available at Avalon if we need to make changes to it?
> ...and please, now flame wars about Avalon
> this time. Thanks.
Thanks Carsten for your explanations!
(and I assume you mean "no flame wars", not "start flame wars now" ;-)
-Bertrand
RE: [Vote] The right container for 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> So, please cast your votes - and please, no flame wars about
> Avalon this time. Thanks.
>
+1 for using ECM for now
Carsten