cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <agalla...@agssa.net>
Subject Re: unstable blocks
Date Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:19:48 GMT
Joerg Heinicke dijo:
> On 30.03.2004 11:44, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Because the current detection is based on the presence of the
>> "exclude.block.xyz" rather than its value, is that right?
>
> I guess this was "once upon a time". The current version even allows
> exclude.block.xyz=false and handles this the same way as the property
> would not be there because of the
> <condition>
>    <istrue/>
> </condition>
> construct. So it's more a bad documentation at the moment. Quote from
> blocks.properties: "Remove blocks from your cocoon distribution by
> uncommenting the corresponding exclude property."

It was never was as documented, because of the Ant properties nature,
always was the posibility to set exclude.block.xyz=[false, true]:
http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/property.html

I meet this first while imported the OJB block and I don't wanted to
compile it by default.

>>> ...So when doing it - what it is a good thing - we have to change the
>>> build process in relation to blocks selection. Isn't it possible to
>>> switch to include.block.{blockname}={true|false} syntax...
>>
>> I'd be +1 on this, "include.block.xyz" makes more sense.
>
> We can do it with changed documentation using exclude.block.xyz=false.
> As local.blocks.properties is loaded before blocks.properties and
> properties can not be reset, this would work.
>
> I personally prefer the other way around: include.block.xyz - including
> the consequences of forcing users to recopy the blocks.properties and
> resetting their blocks selection.
>
> I already have the include way working. It's backward compatible as long
> as the exclude=false is not already used.
>
> WDYT? Change only the documentation (to "use true|false") or
> additionally the property names from exclude to include.

+1 for Change only the documentation (to "use true|false") because in fact
this is the way t currently works.

+0 for additionally the property names from exclude to include. It is just
a matter of name. The question here is what is easier: define included or
excluded blocks. In my case, I have more excluded blocks than included
ones.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.

Mime
View raw message