You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org> on 2004/03/10 11:03:36 UTC
[Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Stephan Michels wrote:
>Am Di, den 09.03.2004 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz um 16:37:
>
>
>>>>We should move XSP in a block anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>+1 from Stefano, Antonio, Reinhard
>>>
>>>
>>+0.5 (=good idea, won't be able to help)
>>
>>
>
>I can offer some help, if nobody on it, then I can try it?!
>
>
Yes pls, this would be really great! So far we have 10 +1, so move on!
--
Reinhard
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Stephan Michels wrote:
>
>> Am Di, den 09.03.2004 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz um 16:37:
>>
>>
>>>>> We should move XSP in a block anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 from Stefano, Antonio, Reinhard
>>>>
>>>
>>> +0.5 (=good idea, won't be able to help)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can offer some help, if nobody on it, then I can try it?!
>>
>>
> Yes pls, this would be really great! So far we have 10 +1, so move on!
Where python xsp will reside? If it won't move - then python block
depends on xsp block. Alternatively, it can be moved into xsp block itself.
Vadim
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Unico Hommes wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Unico Hommes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not the
>>>>> other way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to
>>>
>>> accomplish
>>>
>>>>> I'd prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do some
>>>
>>> research as to
>>>
>>>>> what would be involved to change the build system to
>>>
>>> accomodate this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But this then makes removing xsp more difficult :) I really think
>>>> we should keep all xsp related stuff in one place. This makes the
>>>> whole thing easier to handle but also is more transparent for
>>>> users. They have one single place to look for logicsheets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hm... I think it's hard to classify...
>>>
>>> Do you also want to move the e.g. ESQL logicsheet into
>>> the XSP block? IMO that would not be a good idea.
>>>
>>
>>
>> True...hmm...ok, then whoever does it should decide :)
>>
>>
>>
> I see your point of placing the burden of dependencies with xsp though.
> We could take that as a guideline whenever there isn't a clear reason to
> do otherwise.
I'm starting to realize that XSP is an aspect not a block... maybe we
should have two different concepts?
--
Stefano.
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>
>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Unico Hommes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not the
>>>>other way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to
>>>>
>>>>
>>accomplish
>>
>>
>>>>I'd prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do some
>>>>
>>>>
>>research as to
>>
>>
>>>>what would be involved to change the build system to
>>>>
>>>>
>>accomodate this.
>>
>>
>>>But this then makes removing xsp more difficult :) I really think
>>>we should keep all xsp related stuff in one place. This makes the
>>>whole thing easier to handle but also is more transparent for
>>>users. They have one single place to look for logicsheets.
>>>
>>>
>>Hm... I think it's hard to classify...
>>
>>Do you also want to move the e.g. ESQL logicsheet into
>>the XSP block? IMO that would not be a good idea.
>>
>>
>
>True...hmm...ok, then whoever does it should decide :)
>
>
>
I see your point of placing the burden of dependencies with xsp though.
We could take that as a guideline whenever there isn't a clear reason to
do otherwise.
--
Unico
RE: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> > Unico Hommes wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not the
> >>other way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to
> accomplish
> >>I'd prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do some
> research as to
> >>what would be involved to change the build system to
> accomodate this.
> >>
> >
> > But this then makes removing xsp more difficult :) I really think
> > we should keep all xsp related stuff in one place. This makes the
> > whole thing easier to handle but also is more transparent for
> > users. They have one single place to look for logicsheets.
>
> Hm... I think it's hard to classify...
>
> Do you also want to move the e.g. ESQL logicsheet into
> the XSP block? IMO that would not be a good idea.
True...hmm...ok, then whoever does it should decide :)
Carsten
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Unico Hommes wrote:
>
>
>>I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not
>>the other way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to
>>accomplish I'd prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do
>>some research as to what would be involved to change the
>>build system to accomodate this.
>>
>
> But this then makes removing xsp more difficult :) I really think
> we should keep all xsp related stuff in one place. This makes the
> whole thing easier to handle but also is more transparent for
> users. They have one single place to look for logicsheets.
Hm... I think it's hard to classify...
Do you also want to move the e.g. ESQL logicsheet into
the XSP block? IMO that would not be a good idea.
--
Torsten
RE: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Unico Hommes wrote:
> >
> I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not
> the other way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to
> accomplish I'd prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do
> some research as to what would be involved to change the
> build system to accomodate this.
>
But this then makes removing xsp more difficult :) I really think
we should keep all xsp related stuff in one place. This makes the
whole thing easier to handle but also is more transparent for
users. They have one single place to look for logicsheets.
Carsten
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>I have following problem, that
>>>src/blocks/session-fw/conf/xsp-session-fw.xconf
>>>depends on the xsp block, but won't be executed before the
>>>
>>>
>>patch files
>>
>>
>>>of the xsp block :-/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>This may require a change to the build system. Hmm.
>>
>>
>>
>What about moving *all* xsp stuff into the xsp block? Afaik, the
>session and the authentication block have xsp support. But that
>consists only of a logicsheet and perhaps an utility class.
>So, the xsp block would depend perhaps on the session and auth
>block.
>WDYT?
>
>
>
I tend to think the dependency is from session-fw on xsp, not the other
way around. Unless this becomes really difficult to accomplish I'd
prefer keeping it the way it is now. I will do some research as to what
would be involved to change the build system to accomodate this.
--
Unico
RE: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Stephan Michels <st...@apache.org>.
Am Mi, den 10.03.2004 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler um 14:24:
> > >I have following problem, that
> > > src/blocks/session-fw/conf/xsp-session-fw.xconf
> > >depends on the xsp block, but won't be executed before the
> > patch files
> > >of the xsp block :-/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This may require a change to the build system. Hmm.
> >
> What about moving *all* xsp stuff into the xsp block? Afaik, the
> session and the authentication block have xsp support. But that
> consists only of a logicsheet and perhaps an utility class.
> So, the xsp block would depend perhaps on the session and auth
> block.
> WDYT?
Sounds reasonable. If nobody against it, let do it.
Stephan.
RE: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
> >I have following problem, that
> > src/blocks/session-fw/conf/xsp-session-fw.xconf
> >depends on the xsp block, but won't be executed before the
> patch files
> >of the xsp block :-/
> >
> >
> >
>
> This may require a change to the build system. Hmm.
>
What about moving *all* xsp stuff into the xsp block? Afaik, the
session and the authentication block have xsp support. But that
consists only of a logicsheet and perhaps an utility class.
So, the xsp block would depend perhaps on the session and auth
block.
WDYT?
Carsten
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Stephan Michels wrote:
>Am Mi, den 10.03.2004 schrieb Reinhard Pötz um 11:03:
>
>
>>Stephan Michels wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Am Di, den 09.03.2004 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz um 16:37:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>We should move XSP in a block anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>+1 from Stefano, Antonio, Reinhard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>+0.5 (=good idea, won't be able to help)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I can offer some help, if nobody on it, then I can try it?!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes pls, this would be really great! So far we have 10 +1, so move on!
>>
>>
>
>So, the first stage is done. I also saw that you converted the jflow
>examples, great!
>
>I have following problem, that
> src/blocks/session-fw/conf/xsp-session-fw.xconf
>depends on the xsp block, but won't be executed before the
>patch files of the xsp block :-/
>
>
>
This may require a change to the build system. Hmm.
--
Unico
Re: [Summary] [Vote] Moving XSP into its own block
Posted by Stephan Michels <st...@apache.org>.
Am Mi, den 10.03.2004 schrieb Reinhard Pötz um 11:03:
> Stephan Michels wrote:
>
> >Am Di, den 09.03.2004 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz um 16:37:
> >
> >
> >>>>We should move XSP in a block anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>+1 from Stefano, Antonio, Reinhard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>+0.5 (=good idea, won't be able to help)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I can offer some help, if nobody on it, then I can try it?!
> >
> >
> Yes pls, this would be really great! So far we have 10 +1, so move on!
So, the first stage is done. I also saw that you converted the jflow
examples, great!
I have following problem, that
src/blocks/session-fw/conf/xsp-session-fw.xconf
depends on the xsp block, but won't be executed before the
patch files of the xsp block :-/
Stephan