cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <>
Subject RE: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:58:13 GMT
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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Heinicke [] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:03 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks 
> 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.
> 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 ...
> Joerg

View raw message