cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ovidiu Predescu <>
Subject Re: [C2]: Release Candidate 2
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2001 01:14:19 GMT
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:23:19 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <> wrote:

> > > 4) Layout the distribution
> > >    This is a point we haven't discussed yet. Currently our
> > >    distribution is a mixture of a source and a binary one.
> > >    We deliver the source and a compiled version, but in order
> > >    to run Cocoon, the user has to build a war file.
> > >    I propose to split this: one source distribution which is
> > >    similar to the current one but without the precompiled
> > >    cocoon jar and a binary distribution containing only the
> > >    war file. This war file should work in most servlet engines,
> > >    perhaps not in all.
> +1 for both solutions. 
> 1) the "ready to be deployed - almost-demo-app" (which, IMO, should also
> contain the cocoon docs in the webapp since they are served by Cocoon
> anyway) packaged as a big WAR file.
> 2) the normal distribution.
> What do you think?

I think we should also explain how people can develop their own
applications using Cocoon. I was thinking to have documentation on
this, but also a template of a directory structure, that includes a
sample build.xml, a sample sitemap and cocoon.xconf, and all the
Cocoon libraries.

The sample build.xml would create a WAR file which contains the
minimal libraries required to run the user's application. E.g. if the
user doesn't need SVG, he/she can configure out this option in
build.xml, and the generated WAR file doesn't contain any of the SVG
supporting libraries.

Too often people start developing Cocoon apps by taking the Cocoon
sources and sticking their stuff in Cocoon's directory structure. I
think this is the wrong approach.

Ovidiu Predescu <> (inside HP's firewall only) (my SourceForge page) (GNU, Emacs, other stuff)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message