cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: linking from main samples to block samples
Date Fri, 09 May 2003 01:15:04 GMT
on 5/8/03 3:28 PM Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> 
>>on 5/8/03 4:58 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Le Jeudi, 8 mai 2003, à 11:31 Europe/Zurich, Nicola Ken Barozzi a écrit 
>>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>...We can now style this with xslt in Ant or Cocoon to not show
>>>> items where @exclude="true"
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds interesting as a static way of knowing which blocks are present.
>>>
>>>Maybe there's another way, not too hard IIUC: how about an InputModule 
>>>that find out whether certain Roles are available? Might be more 
>>>generally useful.
>>>
>>>I assume a Composable InputModule can ask its component manager for any 
>>>sitemap component, is that correct?
>>>
>>>The module could be configured to check for the presence of specific 
>>>Roles, and report in the sitemap using something like
>>>
>>>  <map:transform src="someXslt.xsl">
>>>    <map:parameter name="fopBlockPresent" 
>>>value="{role-present:fopSerializer}"/>
>>>  </map:transform>
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>Yes, damn it! we have a super-function web publishing system and we
>>still are infected with those build-time staticisms.
>>
>>get over it: the future is dynamic.
>>
> 
> 
> I haven't followed closely the discussion and so this may be a dumb 
> idea, but we could move .xsamples files from the "conf" dir to the 
> "samples" dir and aggregate them all through the directory generator :
> 
> <map:generate type="dir" src="samples">
>   <!-- regexp to include only ".xsamples" files -->
>   <map:parameter name="include" value=".*\.xsamples$">
> </map:generate>
> <map:transform src="dir2include.xsl"/>
> <map:transform type="xinclude"/>
> <map:transform src="samples2html.xsl"/>
> <map:serialize/>
> 
> Does it make sense ?

Yeah, something like that.

I really don't care how this is done as long as our build system is
*KEPT THIN* and it's our sitemap that grows.

Why? because this community is *MUCH* more focused on sitemaps that on
huge build files.

Next time I hear people willing to have build properties in XML, I set
myself to kill.

You have been warned ;-)

-- 
Stefano.



Mime
View raw message