You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Jeroen Reijn <jr...@hippo.nl> on 2004/03/19 12:35:10 UTC
OJB Sample is broken.
Hi,
while trying the OJB block i ran into some problems with the sitemap. (
I used the latest cvs checkout ).
During the refactoring from woody to cocoon forms something went wrong i
guess.
I made some corrections to the sitemap to make it work.
Linenumber 26
was
<catalogue id="form" name="FormMessages"
location="context://samples/forms/messages"/>
i changed it into:
<catalogue id="form" name="FormsMessages"
location="context://samples/forms/messages"/>
Linenumber 91
was:
<map:transform type="form"/>
i changed it into:
<map:transform type="forms"/>
Linenumber 95:
was:
<map:transform src="context://samples/forms/xsl/html/forms-default.xsl"/>
i changed it into
<map:transform
src="context://samples/forms/resources/forms-samples-styling.xsl"/>
Someone is going to create this last xslt I figure (or has allready has)
but hasn't checked it into CVS.
I hope someone can apply a patch or take a look at it.
Greetz,
Jeroen Reijn
Re: OJB Sample is broken.
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
Jeroen Reijn <jreijn <at> hippo.nl> writes:
> while trying the OJB block i ran into some problems with the sitemap. (
> I used the latest cvs checkout ).
> During the refactoring from woody to cocoon forms something went wrong i
> guess.
>
> I made some corrections to the sitemap to make it work.
Hello Jeroen,
thank you very much for your spotting and patching this sitemap. This error was
caused by some forth-and-back naming caused by me. When fixing this finally I
forgot the OJB block as I looked only into the dependent blocks petstore and
apples.
> <map:transform src="context://samples/forms/xsl/html/forms-default.xsl"/>
>
> Someone is going to create this last xslt I figure (or has allready has)
> but hasn't checked it into CVS.
This forms-default.xsl is the old one and should no longer be used. I deleted it
yesterday (or the day before?) and it's good to know that it was wrongly in use
here.
Should work now again.
Thanks,
Joerg