You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> on 2005/04/07 12:39:07 UTC
The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Hi all,
The src/core directory was initially created to clearly separate the
development of ECM++ and ensure it had no dependencies of other parts of
Cocoon.
All went well until we added some fancy features like includes, variable
expansion, etc, which led an increasing number of classes to move from
src/java to src/core. Having e.g. classes in the o.a.c.environment
packages spread over the two directories is somewhat confusing.
What this shows is that although the Cocoon engine has very few
dependencies on ECM++, ECM++ has an increasing number of dependencies on
the Cocoon engine.
Since we recently added support for other component containers _inside_
ECM++, what is now the real value of src/core? Not much IMO.
So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java.
WDYT?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java.
>
> WDYT?
+1
--
Torsten
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The src/core directory was initially created to clearly separate the
> development of ECM++ and ensure it had no dependencies of other parts
> of Cocoon.
>
> All went well until we added some fancy features like includes,
> variable expansion, etc, which led an increasing number of classes to
> move from src/java to src/core. Having e.g. classes in the
> o.a.c.environment packages spread over the two directories is somewhat
> confusing.
>
> What this shows is that although the Cocoon engine has very few
> dependencies on ECM++, ECM++ has an increasing number of dependencies
> on the Cocoon engine.
>
> Since we recently added support for other component containers
> _inside_ ECM++, what is now the real value of src/core? Not much IMO.
>
> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java.
>
> WDYT?
I think that I agree :) I have also thought about the separation between
src/core and src/java lately as it have becoming increasingly unclear to
me where the border should be with the recent aditions to core.
IMO there would be a value in the separation, if we put what is needed
for executing the sitemap engine and basic apis in core and nothing
else. So that the core is the basic execution and component management
mechanism for Cocoon. But I would assume that it would be quite a lot of
work to get the border right and we have more important things to do, so
for the moment it is probably better to merge the trees.
I would assume that we will need to do some refactorings of the "core"
parts of Cocoon when we start to develop the block manager, to get the
right level of isolation between blocks. When we have done that, it
might be clearer exactly what constitutes the core, and then we can
maybe factor out the core to a separate jar, but right now the border
seem to fuzzy to be worthwhile keeping IMHO.
/Daniel
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java.
+1
--Tim Larson
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The src/core directory was initially created to clearly separate the
> development of ECM++ and ensure it had no dependencies of other parts of
> Cocoon.
>
> All went well until we added some fancy features like includes, variable
> expansion, etc, which led an increasing number of classes to move from
> src/java to src/core. Having e.g. classes in the o.a.c.environment
> packages spread over the two directories is somewhat confusing.
>
> What this shows is that although the Cocoon engine has very few
> dependencies on ECM++, ECM++ has an increasing number of dependencies on
> the Cocoon engine.
>
> Since we recently added support for other component containers _inside_
> ECM++, what is now the real value of src/core? Not much IMO.
>
> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java.
>
> WDYT?
+1
--
Stefano.
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Le 7 avr. 05, à 12:39, Sylvain Wallez a écrit :
>>
>>> ...Since we recently added support for other component containers
>>> _inside_ ECM++, what is now the real value of src/core? Not much IMO.
>>>
>>> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java...
>>
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Should we also deprecate the direct use of ECM++ in some way,
>
>
>> and encourage people to use other containers at the application level?
>>
>> -Bertrand
>
>
> We should IMO not deprecate it in the meaning that we are going to
> stop support it. Considering the amount of user code that probably
> depends on the Avalon framework we should support it for a long time.
+1. Avalon interfaces are and will be for a long time important pieces
of Cocoon, and we have in 2.2 our own implementation, that along with
hosting user components is also the hosting infrastructure for other
containers.
So although user components may slowly move away from Avalon APIs, the
"container of container" will have an increasingly important role.
> But we could certainly encourage people to use other containers in our
> documentation, if we think that our support for that already is good
> enough (haven't tried it yet).
+1.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 7 avr. 05, à 13:43, Daniel Fagerstrom a écrit :
> ...We should IMO not deprecate it in the meaning that we are going to
> stop support it. Considering the amount of user code that probably
> depends on the Avalon framework we should support it for a long time.
>
> But we could certainly encourage people to use other containers in our
> documentation, if we think that our support for that already is good
> enough (haven't tried it yet).
100% agreed, that's what I meant.
I've been testing the new spring-app stuff, and using hivemind in other
projects, and both work very well.
-Bertrand
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le 7 avr. 05, à 12:39, Sylvain Wallez a écrit :
>
>> ...Since we recently added support for other component containers
>> _inside_ ECM++, what is now the real value of src/core? Not much IMO.
>>
>> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java...
>
>
> +1
>
> Should we also deprecate the direct use of ECM++ in some way,
> and encourage people to use other containers at the application level?
>
> -Bertrand
We should IMO not deprecate it in the meaning that we are going to stop
support it. Considering the amount of user code that probably depends on
the Avalon framework we should support it for a long time.
But we could certainly encourage people to use other containers in our
documentation, if we think that our support for that already is good
enough (haven't tried it yet).
/Daniel
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 7 avr. 05, à 12:39, Sylvain Wallez a écrit :
> ...Since we recently added support for other component containers
> _inside_ ECM++, what is now the real value of src/core? Not much IMO.
>
> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java...
+1
Should we also deprecate the direct use of ECM++ in some way, and
encourage people to use other containers at the application level?
-Bertrand
Re: The value of src/core (or lack thereof)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> So I propose to remove src/core and move all its content to src/java.
+1
Vadim