On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 10:06 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > Why do we have our own xconf that we need to keep in sync with the
> > > > cocoon one?
> > >
> > > Because we tweak it as needed.
> >
> > That should be done via xpatch and not by hand. Tweaking makes
> > maintainment hard.
>
> Cocoon is moving away from using xpatch. In fact lots of that
> is already implemented in Cocoon trunk. We need to change
> our way of handling xconf and sitemap snippets.
Yeah they do not use xpath but include a dir with conf-snippets which is
even better.
>
> > > > Why not just patching the cocoon one and using the original cocoon
> > > > version of xconf, sitemaps, etc.?
> > >
> > > Because the Cocoon ones are an example/template for Cocoon, not to be
> > > used in production.
> >
> > The xconf as well?
>
> Yes.
We are as well using this. We made our own xconf based on this example
but still...
> > BTW I finally got it working after a chat with Antonio. He brought me on
> > the right track. Thx Antonio.
>
> It would be better to talk on the list. Antonio is subscribed.
> Then we might all be able to assist.
In general you are right, but not in this case.
I do not see the point in having *private* conversions with Antonio,
which is a friend, here on the list. We did *not* talked about this
issue, it was covered only in one sentence, it was a *private* chat.
> Anyway, not so. Did you run 'build test' after making
> such a drastic change?
No sorry, I only tested the dynamic mode. Will be more careful in the
future.
I removed the offending lib again. BTW you have write access as well,
right?
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
|