cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Michels <step...@apache.org>
Subject RE: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks XConfToolTask.java
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:47:54 GMT
Am Di, den 16.03.2004 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler um 07:58:
> Hi Stephan, could you please revert your changes? Joerg already
> asked you to do so and I think we should either revert or change
> the current behaviour. It's really annoying to have all this "Dismiss"
> messages. There are hundreds of them that weren't there before.

The "Dismiss: ..." messages means only that the patch wasn't applied.
I can easily omit these messages.
 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:joerg.heinicke@gmx.de] 
> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:03 PM
> > To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks 
> > XConfToolTask.java
> > 
> > On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote:
> > 
> > > In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had 
> > separate targets 
> > > for the patch files. But it was incredible slow. Then I merge these 
> > > targets to one target, and rewrote to the XConf task to a 
> > > MatchingTask, which allow to execute more than one patches.
> > > But it doesn't preserves the dependencies, then Carsten cuts the 
> > > target in to several target again, to solve this problem.
> > > Now, with latest change it works again.
> > > 
> > > I tend to agree with you Joerg, separate targets are much 
> > more elegant.
> > > But in the real world I have real problems, like a build 
> > time von 4min 
> > > 25sec on a 2.4GHz Intel system. Which is, by the way, unacceptable, 
> > > IMHO.
> > > 
> > > So, should I revert the change to have a more elegant build 
> > file with 
> > > bigger build time?! .... ehrmm ... I think not.
> > 
> > To be honest, such statements enrage me at least a bit. You 
> > talk about time, but you forget the time to maintain this 
> > additional dependency resolving. Starting with the missing 
> > .xweb patches you have now to go on searching for bugs - 
> > things that already have been working. For having a look on 
> > this issue I removed ojb, database and hsqldb block from the 
> > excluded ones. A simple build (Cocoon was previously built 
> > with only cforms and xsp enabled) - and many patches of those 
> > blocks were not applied. Only a clean build made it working - 
> > partly, see above. If I need to do every time a clean build 
> > to get this thing correctly working, I don't see how you can 
> > gain time. This might be only a simple bug somewhere, maybe 
> > only a typo - but I talk about the principle - which, I know, 
> > often ends in obstinacy.

Was a minor bug, should now be solved.

> > IMO, yes, we should revert it. I prefer the elegancy much 
> > more about the speed. And to add Carsten's argument: 
> > Additionally it forces us "keeping the dependencies correct".
> > 
> > Excuse me, if I have forgotten to add 'rant' around it ...

Yes, you have.

But okay, when I will revert my changes to version 1.17 from 2003/05/05

Stephan.


Mime
View raw message