Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 93475 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2004 13:41:06 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2004 13:41:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 11694 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2004 13:40:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 11668 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2004 13:40:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 11642 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2004 13:40:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO naomi.webworks.nl) (24.132.161.79) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2004 13:40:59 -0000 Received: from hippo.nl ([10.10.20.104]) by naomi.webworks.nl with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:40:59 +0100 Message-ID: <404F1AEB.3060404@hippo.nl> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:40:59 +0100 From: Unico Hommes User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2004 13:40:59.0680 (UTC) FILETIME=[52816A00:01C406A5] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>>I have following problem, that >>>src/blocks/session-fw/conf/xsp-session-fw.xconf >>>depends on the xsp block, but won't be executed before the >>> >>> >>patch files >> >> >>>of the xsp block :-/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>This may require a change to the build system. Hmm. >> >> >> >What about moving *all* xsp stuff into the xsp block? Afaik, the >session and the authentication block have xsp support. But that >consists only of a logicsheet and perhaps an utility class. >So, the xsp block would depend perhaps on the session and auth >block. >WDYT? > > > I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not the other way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to accomplish I'd prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do some research as to what would be involved to change the build system to accomodate this. -- Unico