Re: Are the component configurations part of our contract?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Ralph Goers wrote:
> Since I don't know the details about how this is all being done I'll 
> just ask some questions. 
> 
> 1. Is it possible to declare the generators, transformers, etc as beans 
> and reference them by the same id (i.e. the role name) in the sitemap as 
> has always been done?
Yes, there is no difference from the user's pov.

> 
> 2. Is it possible to take components that compiled in 2.1, recompile 
> them with 2.2 and then configure them and use them?
Yes, in most cases. As long as you use the "public api" of Cocoon this
works. Of course some internal things have changed and if you use
something of that, you have to change your code.

> 
> If the answer to both of these is yes then I don't see a problem.  I 
> don't think it is a big deal to require that all component definitions 
> move out of the sitemap and be declared as Spring beans (or whatever).  
> However, the "logic" of a sitemap should not have to change.  That would 
> be a real pain.
Yes, the sitemap itself and its logic work in the same way as 2.1.x.

Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Chief Architect
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/