commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <>
Subject Re: [site] No commons build
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:52:46 GMT
OK I'm going to stop trying to swim against the flow.


On 3/16/06, Stephen Colebourne <> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>  > Another problem is the new "commons" menus doesn't work with distros
>  > that include their site with the docs - I just checked commons logging
>  > and none of the commons entries work - it needs to be changed to
>  > absolute urls, rather than relative.
> I chose relative URLs deliberatley to avoid the external links in the
> commons menu section. However, you are correct and these have to be
> absolute.
> I have adjusted the project.css to remove the external link image from
> all links in the commons menu div to get around this change.
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > I have implemented an alternative approach in Validator that uses an
> > svn:external to pull in the commons-build.
> >
> > I set up a new "shared-build" directory in commons-build and created
> > an svn:external to pull in that directory. Anything that gets dropped
> > in "shared-build" will be automatically pulled into Validator  (or any
> > other component that uses it) via the svn:external.
> >
> > This has the benefit of removing commons-build, but not introducing
> > the requirement to be online to build or view the docs properly.
> This fails in three ways for me:
> 1) Eclispe doesn't pick up the svn:external and use it. Thus validator
> won't site build from an svn checkout in the most popular IDE.
> 2) The dtd is still referenced by a relative path. This causes maven
> issues and thus complicates our lives.
> 3) This setup requires a rebuild for every ApacheCon type event. As can
> be seen from the number of commons sites which still reference ApacheCon
> 2005, this mechanism just doesn't scale/work. Referencing a single
> central css file handles this scenario.
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>  > The problem with this approach [online files] is that as well
>  > as requiring an online
>  > connection to build components, it also requires a online connection
>  > to view the docs properly. <snip>
> What proportion of people view the site offline? Its got to be fairly
> small. And the only thing they'll see is that the site style changes a
> little. IMHO thats not a big deal.
> What proportion of people need to build the site offline? A tiny number.
> Is it worth the extra hassle to deal with it? (And in fact all they have
> to do is to remove the dtd and entity references from navigation .xml)
> Stephen
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message