cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@upaya.co.uk>
Subject Re: excluding unstable blocks by default
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:28:08 GMT
Joerg Heinicke wrote:

>Upayavira <uv <at> upaya.co.uk> writes:
>
>  
>
>>How hard would it be to switch to having:
>>
>>build stable
>>or
>>build unstable
>>
>>instead of build webapp?
>>
>>That would enable someone to choose right up front, without having to do any
>>file editing.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm, that's indeed an interesting approach IMO. I thought about something
>similar (creating blocks.properties on the fly) months ago, but I stopped as the
>user would no longer have a base for starting with his blocks selection
>settings, i.e. no easy way like "copy blocks.properties to
>local.blocks.properties".
>
>With the current implementation a simple build stable/unstable would not work.
>You must ignore local.blocks.properties for getting this working.
>
>But the above also leads to new idea: First remove blocks.properties from CVS
>and the need for local.blocks.properties, both files will not be read in the
>init target. The information stable/unstable is in gump.xml and blocks-build.xml
>is created from it, so we don't need the indirection using blocks.properties.
>
>Now build stable and build unstable influence the creation of blocks-build.xml.
>Sounds not very difficult IMO.
>
>Now I want to complete this picture:
>build (minimum) webapp <== just Cocoon core
>build stable webapp <== Cocoon core + stable blocks
>build unstable webapp <== Cocoon core + stable + unstable blocks
>build complete webapp <== Cocoon core + stable + unstable + deprecated blocks
>
>I also would ignore the backwards incompatibility: We can print out on build
>time what is chosen, furthermore I think it's very obvious when build webapp
>does no longer include your selected blocks, everybody will get this very fast.
>
>And for a custom blocks selection there is additionally
>build custom webapp
>This target would look for a local.blocks.properties (or
>custom.blocks.properties for consistency with the target). If it's not there it
>generates it, stops the build and asks the user for doing the selection in this
>file. A further call to the target would execute the build completely.
>
>BTW, if you only introduce build stable/unstable, mapping one or the other to
>build webapp, then you can not build the war file with the same
>behaviour/default selection of stable/unstable blocks.
>
>WDYT?
>  
>
Reads great to me. Much better. I like the way you've got a 'core only' 
option in there. Thoughts from others?

Regards, Upayavira



Mime
View raw message