On Mar, 12 de Abril de 2005, 0:59, Reinhard Poetz dijo: > Geoff Howard wrote: >> 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------
Is posible to change the name from: block.xml -> cob.xml I see the analogy to WEB-INF/ --> web.xml. IMHO this is to keep the same name and avoid confusions. ;-) WDYT? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
