You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> on 2003/02/09 11:20:04 UTC

No cwiki in 0.3.x? (Re: Quirks -> Standards-compliance mode rendering)

On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:43:11PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote, On 08/02/2003 12.25:
...
> >Btw, want me to merge the cwiki stuff or are you okay with it?  With
> >cwiki working, I think we can do a 0.3.1 release.
> 
> You mean the latest patch about the final cwiki verycool grammar?
> You wanna do it?
> 
> Cool, I like it when others do the work for me :-)
> 
> Go go go.

Tried to with an updated chaperon and chaperon block, but I hit this
exception:

java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.excalibur.source.Source.getURI()Ljava/lang/String;
    at org.apache.cocoon.transformation.LexicalTransformer.setup(LexicalTransformer.java:193)
    at org.apache.cocoon.components.pipeline.AbstractProcessingPipeline.setupPipeline(AbstractProcessingPipeline.java:391)
    at org.apache.cocoon.components.pipeline.impl.AbstractCachingProcessingPipeline.setupPipeline(AbstractCachingProcessingPipeline.java:295)

When I try to upgrade just excalibur-sourceresolve, I get this exception:

java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.excalibur.source.Source.discardValidity()V
    at org.apache.cocoon.Cocoon.configure(Cocoon.java:339)
    at org.apache.cocoon.Cocoon.initialize(Cocoon.java:284)
    at org.apache.cocoon.servlet.CocoonServlet.createCocoon(CocoonServlet.java:1340)

So looks like we can't get this wiki stuff working without upgrading
Cocoon, which would break sitemap backwards-compat, which I really don't
think we should do in the 0.3.x series.

So how about:
 - release 0.3.1 with cwiki completely removed
 - upgrade Cocoon and if everything seems to work, do a 0.4 alpha release
   (alpha indicating that sitemap contracts are liable to break).


> BTW, thinking about iguanacharlie, I think that maybe the best thing is 
> to kep krysalis-site as-is and move the forrest-site one to CSS. I'd 
> prefer we keep a skin that still uses tables. Is that ok?

Wouldn't it be better to have iguanacharlie as a completely independent
forrest-css skin?  Seems better to make a clean break, than to gradually
lose forrest-site's compatibility with old browsers.


--Jeff

> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

Re: No cwiki in 0.3.x? (Re: Quirks -> Standards-compliance mode rendering)

Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote, On 09/02/2003 11.20:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:43:11PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
>>Jeff Turner wrote, On 08/02/2003 12.25:
> 
> ...

> Tried to with an updated chaperon and chaperon block, but I hit this
> exception:
> 
> java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.excalibur.source.Source.getURI()Ljava/lang/String;
...
> 
> So looks like we can't get this wiki stuff working without upgrading
> Cocoon, 

Now you understand my question about merging the FOP branch ;-)

> which would break sitemap backwards-compat, which I really don't
> think we should do in the 0.3.x series.
> 
> So how about:
>  - release 0.3.1 with cwiki completely removed
>  - upgrade Cocoon and if everything seems to work, do a 0.4 alpha release
>    (alpha indicating that sitemap contracts are liable to break).

The cwiki stuff now should work, I thought I fixed it, but the 
forrestbot.cocoondev still seems to not be working on it %-)

Personally I'd just skip 0.3.1 and go for 0.4 anyway.

>>BTW, thinking about iguanacharlie, I think that maybe the best thing is 
>>to kep krysalis-site as-is and move the forrest-site one to CSS. I'd 
>>prefer we keep a skin that still uses tables. Is that ok?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to have iguanacharlie as a completely independent
> forrest-css skin?  Seems better to make a clean break, than to gradually
> lose forrest-site's compatibility with old browsers.

As we did with the first switch we did, yes. I was talking about a 
long-term goal, +1 for your suggestion.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------