On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 13:19 +0200, Reinhard Pötz wrote:

-1

I think it is much too early to proclaim a tiny blossom like Corona to be the heir to the huge thicket called Cocoon. It gives the wrong signal to potential new users and will make them shy away.

They will read it as: "Oh, they are now working on C3.0. So C2.2 will be legacy by the time my project is finished. I may be forced to migrate to 3.0 with lots of incompatibilities. Better I use some other framework for now. I'll have another look when C3.1 is out."

At least that was my personal reaction when in 1999 I first came across Cocoon. I never bothered with C1.7 because C2.0 was already announced as being a complete rewrite. Luckily, I passed by a second time in 2002 when C2.1 was in beta state.

Evolution instead of revolution is the key to success here.

C2.2 almost killed us because it was very bold and then took very long to get out due to the feature creep during the long time it took to get out. Porting stuff forward and backward between C2.1 and C2.2 did and does cost a lot of resources. I would not want to throw in there yet another branch.

Before considering C3.0 we should have finished the C2.1 to C2.2 transition period. And that is not achieved by simply declaring the C2.1 branch to be closed. For that I would like to hear more success stories where people actually migrated non-trivial apps from C2.1 to C2.2.

I don't want to stand in the way of progress here. Please carry on with Corona and stay within the Cocoon context but just don't call to Cocoon-x.y. Wasn't the original motivation for Corona to have a programmable pipeline container which can be used independently of Cocoon?

Maybe stupid question: Why can't it be a set of experimental blocks in trunk which may lateron replace the current sitemap processor?

Cheers, Alfred.