cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Upayavira" ...@upaya.co.uk>
Subject Re: Is a separate cocoon.xconf for "build docs" really needed?
Date Mon, 12 May 2003 13:10:08 GMT
On 2 May 2003 at 13:47, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:

> > See http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19507 for
> > details.
> > 
> > Currently src/documentation/cocoon.xconf has invalid component
> > declarations, I could probably fix them but why not use the standard
> > src/webapp/WEB-INF/cocoon.xconf for docs as well?
> > 
> > Having one .xconf would make maintenance easier IMHO.
> 
> Heck, I missed that and went away just patching the cocoon.xconf.
> IIRC, however, the separate cocoon.xconf was there because doc
> generation requires a much simpler Cocoon, so it makes little sense to
> overload the Component Manager with unneeded pieces. If the delay is
> acceptable, however, having just one file would ease maintenance a
> lot.
> 
> Anyone else cares to comment on that?

Back from holiday, and busily checking through around 1000 messages!

I came across this separate Cocoon setup recently. I can see another reason why it is 
needed. 

When you use the CLI to generate a page, it saves the page with the full Cocoon 
URI, which would mean that, if you used the default Cocoon setup, you would get all 
pages called documentation/*, which is less than ideal.

Before I went on holiday, I made some changes to my copy of the CLI, which will 
allow the user to strip unnecessary directories from a URI path (much as you can with 
something like wget). This would enable the docs build to be merged with the 
standard Cocoon setup.

I prepared a patch, but didn't post it (figured that it was not a good idea to post it just

before going away). I'll try to post it this week.

Regards, Upayavira

Mime
View raw message