cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoff Howard <coc...@leverageweb.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/targets webapp-build.xml
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:14:09 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>  
>
>>Geoff Howard wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>  Modified:    .        status.xml
>>>>               tools/targets webapp-build.xml
>>>>  Log:
>>>>     <action dev="CZ" type="fix" fixes-bug="27217" due-to="Andreas 
>>>>Hartmann" due-to-email="andreas@apache.org">
>>>>       Build System: Apply filtering to patched 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>configurations coming 
>>    
>>
>>>>from the different blocks (loglevel etc.)
>>>>     </action>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Was this necessary?  We already have property substitution 
>>>      
>>>
>>working - 
>>    
>>
>>>is filtering also necessary?  It seems to create extra 
>>>      
>>>
>>overhead (all 
>>    
>>
>>>those new copies).
>>>      
>>>
>Ok, this feature has been requested by users (bug 27217) and if you
>use properties in the configuration of the blocks (like loglevel,
>see below) then these values are not replaced which is imho very
>bad. So I fixed this and yes this requires copying/filtering four
>files which might add another second to the ten minutes build time :)
>  
>

Properties are replaced - check out 
src/blocks/slide/conf/slide-target.xlog for example: it uses 
${context-root}.  I think either the bug author did not realize this 
feature exists, or when the feature was added (a few months ago?) we did 
not know the bug existed.

On the copying - I didn't look carefully and assumed the filtering 
happened to each patch file, not the final targets.  Still, these seem 
like completely overlapping (and therefore confusing) features - am I 
misunderstanding?

Now, I thought this property expansion was added to the wiki docs about 
xpatch but can't now find it.  Once we decide what to do about this I'll 
make sure to fix them.

>Anyway, if you (or someone else) thinks that this isn't necessary
>then I can revert it and we will close the bug with "wontfix".
>  
>

Knowing that properties are already replaced, do you see a purpose for 
this still?

Geoff

Mime
View raw message