On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:18:50AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: ... > >Just one question: where would we put the xml sources, and where > >the results? > > The xml sources obviously land in commons-site. > > Due to recent load problems on daedalus, I'm leery of running > anything automated. So, I guess I'm leaning towards the site, > httpd-site model with docs and xdocs. (xdocs == XML, docs == > generated) > > Yeah, I'm not a big fan of storing generated files in CVS, but I'm > fairly certain that we can't generate them on daedalus. > > And, I would also prefer that we take the approach of site and > httpd-site and check in the necessary jars to get forrest to work. I > don't want to have to also checkout forrest's CVS. I just want to > check out commons-site and be done with it. -- justin
Forrest isn't small and fluffy like Anakia. It's 11mb of jars (3.2mb XML/XSLT libs, 4mb PDF and SVG->PNG libs, the rest Cocoon). How about if commons-site contains the XML and a Makefile / Ant script for validating the contents against a DTD. That would be quick to download and sufficient for users to update the docs. In theory, content editors shouldn't care what the presentation looks like. But if they want to generate HTML, they can download Forrest separately. With this system, there's no hardcoded dependency on Forrest, just the Forrest DTD. If Forrest is too slow, turf it out and use Anakia/DVSL/DSSSL/whatever. We can also have a box somewhere (cocoondev probably) checking out and regenerating the site every 2 hours or so. I've put a binary snapshot of Forrest up at: http://cvs.apache.org/~jefft/forrest/forrest-shbat-0.2-dev.tar.gz Getting started guide: http://xml.apache.org/forrest/your-project.html --Jeff
