You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Guido Casper <gc...@s-und-n.de> on 2003/10/11 11:15:17 UTC
repository block? (was Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1 gump.xml)
Thanks Joerg,
sorry for that.
I think it would be a good idea to consolidate all the Source interfaces
and source utilities either into the core or into a separate block.
Should we create a repository block as suggested by Unico Hommes:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106571386426709&w=2
The XXXTraversableXXX stuff could go there as well (as could future
JSR170 related developments)
What do you/others think?
Guido
joerg@apache.org wrote:
> joerg 2003/10/10 18:20:18
>
> Modified: . gump.xml
> Log:
> fixing gump descriptor: scratchpad depends now on slide block
>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.89 +2 -1 cocoon-2.1/gump.xml
>
> Index: gump.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/cocoon-2.1/gump.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.88
> retrieving revision 1.89
> diff -u -r1.88 -r1.89
> --- gump.xml 29 Sep 2003 09:22:44 -0000 1.88
> +++ gump.xml 11 Oct 2003 01:20:18 -0000 1.89
> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@
> <depend project="jakarta-servletapi-4"/>
> <depend project="cocoon-block-velocity"/>
> <depend project="cocoon-block-cron"/>
> + <depend project="cocoon-block-slide"/>
>
> <work nested="tools/anttasks"/>
> <home nested="build/cocoon-@@DATE@@"/>
Re: repository block? (was Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1 gump.xml)
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jh...@virbus.de>.
On 11.10.2003 11:15, Guido Casper wrote:
> Thanks Joerg,
>
> sorry for that.
No problem, it was easy from the compiler error messages while Eclipse
had no problem with compiling ;-)
> I think it would be a good idea to consolidate all the Source interfaces
> and source utilities either into the core or into a separate block.
>
> Should we create a repository block as suggested by Unico Hommes:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106571386426709&w=2
>
> The XXXTraversableXXX stuff could go there as well (as could future
> JSR170 related developments)
>
> What do you/others think?
I like the proposal. This would also include the replacement of
DirectoryGenerator by the more common TraversableGenerator (or should it
be called RepositoryGenerator then?). If this step will be done, is the
slide block still needed? Is anybody using it? Should we deprecate it or
only when we can provide an alternative with our JSR 170 implementation?
Joerg