On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 10:06 +1000, David Crossley wrote: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > > ... > > > > Why do we have our own xconf that we need to keep in sync with the > > > > cocoon one? > > > > > > Because we tweak it as needed. > > > > That should be done via xpatch and not by hand. Tweaking makes > > maintainment hard. > > Cocoon is moving away from using xpatch. In fact lots of that > is already implemented in Cocoon trunk. We need to change > our way of handling xconf and sitemap snippets.
Yeah they do not use xpath but include a dir with conf-snippets which is even better. > > > > > Why not just patching the cocoon one and using the original cocoon > > > > version of xconf, sitemaps, etc.? > > > > > > Because the Cocoon ones are an example/template for Cocoon, not to be > > > used in production. > > > > The xconf as well? > > Yes. We are as well using this. We made our own xconf based on this example but still... > > BTW I finally got it working after a chat with Antonio. He brought me on > > the right track. Thx Antonio. > > It would be better to talk on the list. Antonio is subscribed. > Then we might all be able to assist. In general you are right, but not in this case. I do not see the point in having *private* conversions with Antonio, which is a friend, here on the list. We did *not* talked about this issue, it was covered only in one sentence, it was a *private* chat. > Anyway, not so. Did you run 'build test' after making > such a drastic change? No sorry, I only tested the dynamic mode. Will be more careful in the future. I removed the offending lib again. BTW you have write access as well, right? salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
