cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks XConfToolTask.java
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:56:33 GMT
Stephan Michels wrote:
> 
> 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.
>  
That would be great!

Carsten

> > 
> > > -----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