Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote:
...
Oh, I totally understand that Cocoon is a work in progress... that's
actually one of the things I like most about it :). I _did_ mention in a
reply to my original proposal on the dev-list (and was tacked to the bottom
of the forward that I gave Ralph that ended up
Hi:
I think this discussion is good.
Please mantain the discussion in just one list. These is a waste of Apache
resources sending all the messages to both lists.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Ralph Goers wrote:
Yes, the blocks are in their own jars. I'm OK with that, but that
really isn't an issue for me. I simply meant that when building from
source, since you have the option of excluding blocks the output could
all go in one jar. With binaries you'd be required to separate them
]
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Gallardo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 3:07 AM
Subject: RE: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
...
I don't want to clean or insert anything else. I build all my stuff in
my own project using Maven. We just want
this helps.
Regards, Upayavira
Ralph Goers wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sam Chance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Maybe my
Ralph Goers wrote:
- The samples are easy to exclude with the new build.
Please enlighten me. I did a build where the only block I built was html. I
still got all the samples - except the only blocks sample present was html.
I also got a bunch of jars in WEB-INF/lib that I am sure I don't need.
: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
What I urge in relation to this subject is patience.
This subject has been discussed before, and the developers are aware of
it. The current approach is better than it was, but still far from
perfect
Ralph Goers wrote:
I don't have any of those set as they were not in the build.properties file
in 2.1RC1, so I didn't know they existed. I will certainly use
exclude.webapp.samples now that I know.
Sorry, but it was there:
Geoff Howard wrote:
Sonny Sukumar wrote:
Is there a document that explains line by line what each of the
entries in build.properties is? Some of them weren't clear to me,
so I just guessed whether I needed them or not.
Not that I'm aware of and it's a good idea. Could you start a wiki
page
From: Geoff Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:16:03 -0400
Geoff Howard wrote:
Sonny Sukumar wrote:
Is there a document that explains line by line what each of the entries
Sonny Sukumar wrote:
Geoff Howard wrote:
Sonny Sukumar wrote:
I see you started a Wiki page at
http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=BuildProperties.
I don't think I'm quite qualified to put in the descriptions of the
line items, but for everybody else so inclined, do check out Geoff's
You are absolutely correct. I was looking at block.properties as that is the
only file I have overridden.
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1
Gallardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 1:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Pardon me for being rude, but I really don't care. I will
not integrate
my project into cocoon (i.e - use Cocoon's build to build
my webapp). I
, August 16, 2003 4:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Is there a document that explains line by line what each of the entries in
build.properties is? Some of them weren't clear to me, so I just guessed
whether I needed them
-Original Message-
From: Sam Chance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Maybe my angst is really unfounded and I just want
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
The explanation given here is *not* an explanation
at all - not all of us are subscribers to the developers
list and so are not party to the discussions that prompted
this decision - perhaps one of the developers can
summarise
Ralph Goers wrote:
Personally, I don't really care whether cocoon ships as a binary or not. In
fact, to ship as a binary, each of the blocks would need to be in its own
jar file. From a documentation perspective this might be better as it is
easy to see which blocks are being included in a
recommendation would end up forcing. :)
Sincerely,
Jay Freeman (saurik)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Geoff Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Ralph Goers wrote
the best of both worlds.
Geoff
-Original Message-
From: Derek Hohls [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
The explanation given here is *not* an explanation
at all - not all of us
: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:21:17 -0400
Sam Chance wrote:
As a user...the binary is essential. I understand it makes it easier for
the developers, but I think the issue needs to be revisited with an intent
to distribute a binary.
Ok, first of all - I
: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Released - binary??
Sam Chance wrote:
As a user...the binary is essential. I understand it makes it easier for
the developers, but I think the issue needs to be revisited with an intent
The explanation given here is *not* an explanation
at all - not all of us are subscribers to the developers
list and so are not party to the discussions that prompted
this decision - perhaps one of the developers can
summarise the issues and update the website - then the
rest of us can have a
Stephen
Thanks, yes, I will make the effort to go and read them.
But my point still stands - not everyone will have read the
mail archives or wants to be an "on the edge" developer;
I also think that the most large modern packages come
in a "binary" format that if a decision to not take this
Derek Hohls wrote:
Stephen
Thanks, yes, I will make the effort to go and read them.
But my point still stands - not everyone will have read the
mail archives or wants to be an on the edge developer;
I'm pretty sure adding the link I just send to the download page won't
entice these people
I'm coming in after Steven's answers so I'll just add a few things...
Derek Hohls wrote:
The explanation given here is *not* an explanation
at all - not all of us are subscribers to the developers
list and so are not party to the discussions that prompted
this decision - perhaps one of the
Derek Hohls wrote:
The explanation given here is *not* an explanation
at all - not all of us are subscribers to the developers
list and so are not party to the discussions that prompted
this decision - perhaps one of the developers can
summarise the issues and update the website - then the
rest
26 matches
Mail list logo
