You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@whimsical.apache.org by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> on 2017/05/25 11:43:25 UTC
Why is .json preferred over .cgi?
Deploying the new dataflow documentation - better explaining which data
files are dependent on which sources - shows an issue when there are two
www/ files with the same basename. Try:
https://whimsy.apache.org/test/dataflow
You should get a pretty page from dataflow.cgi, but instead you get the
raw dataflow.json file.
Is there a config directive for this I'm missing, or is this just a
limitation where we shouldn't have file.json and file.cgi in one place?
Separately, I'm happy to move these files to a better place, perhaps
www/doc if that's the consensus. I think it would also be better to
find a way to have doc only in one place, and periodically generate
www/public/README.html from dataflow. I can make the alternate output
easily, but not sure about easiest (lowest impact on server) way to
generate README.html only when the .json data changes.
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
Re: Why is .json preferred over .cgi?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 05/25/2017 03:31 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I'm traveling so I can't provide a better link but look up mod_speling (yes
> with one L)
Should be mod_negotiation, which is in charge of multiviews negotiation
(multiple docs with the same base name). You can set a preferred order
for the extensions.
>
> On May 25, 2017 7:43 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
>> Deploying the new dataflow documentation - better explaining which data
>> files are dependent on which sources - shows an issue when there are two
>> www/ files with the same basename. Try:
>>
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/test/dataflow
>>
>> You should get a pretty page from dataflow.cgi, but instead you get the
>> raw dataflow.json file.
>>
>> Is there a config directive for this I'm missing, or is this just a
>> limitation where we shouldn't have file.json and file.cgi in one place?
>>
>> Separately, I'm happy to move these files to a better place, perhaps
>> www/doc if that's the consensus. I think it would also be better to
>> find a way to have doc only in one place, and periodically generate
>> www/public/README.html from dataflow. I can make the alternate output
>> easily, but not sure about easiest (lowest impact on server) way to
>> generate README.html only when the .json data changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> - Shane
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>>
>
Re: Why is .json preferred over .cgi?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
I'm traveling so I can't provide a better link but look up mod_speling (yes
with one L)
On May 25, 2017 7:43 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Deploying the new dataflow documentation - better explaining which data
> files are dependent on which sources - shows an issue when there are two
> www/ files with the same basename. Try:
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/test/dataflow
>
> You should get a pretty page from dataflow.cgi, but instead you get the
> raw dataflow.json file.
>
> Is there a config directive for this I'm missing, or is this just a
> limitation where we shouldn't have file.json and file.cgi in one place?
>
> Separately, I'm happy to move these files to a better place, perhaps
> www/doc if that's the consensus. I think it would also be better to
> find a way to have doc only in one place, and periodically generate
> www/public/README.html from dataflow. I can make the alternate output
> easily, but not sure about easiest (lowest impact on server) way to
> generate README.html only when the .json data changes.
>
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>