On Apr 11, 2005 4:57 PM, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I don't know why we named it "COB-INF" but there was (still is?) a good reason for this because I remember some long discussion.
IIRC, reason was to avoid conflict with avalon/phoenix/somesuch BLOCK-INF/block.xml, hence COB (Cocoon Block).
Yes. See [1] and [2] (first post got "orphaned" from the rest of the thread in the archive)
Also, I assume you've seen [3]?
- Geoff
1 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106510643100003&r=1&w=2 2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106510548208709&w=2 3 http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/BlocksFSLayout
Thanks Geoff and Vadim
as we already had a vote, we should respect the result and have following intra-block file-system structure:
--------------------------------------------------------------
[cocoon block] [DIR]
|
+-- COB-INF [DIR]
+-- block.xml
+-- classes [DIR]
+-- lib [DIR]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhard P�tz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}web(log): http://www.poetz.cc --------------------------------------------------------------------
