Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add the
input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components go in the
sitemap?
--
Stefano.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add the
input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components go in the
sitemap?
Recently there was a discussion about FOM and input modules:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11065482741&r=1&w=2, i
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add the
input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components go in
the sitemap?
As part of the stuff Sylvain and Carsten recently did I thought we
discussed putting all "definitions" in the block's
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add the
input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components go in
the sitemap?
You can do it right now. is handled exactly as an xconf
file to feed the service manager. And since components don't
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add the
input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components go in
the sitemap?
We had several attempts to change this but there was always someone
against it :(
You can do it
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add
the input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components
go in the sitemap?
We had several attempts to change this but there was always someone
agai
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Am I the only one that is bugged by the fact that you have to add the
input modules in the cocoon.xconf while the sitemap components go in
the sitemap?
You can do it right now. is handled exactly as an xconf
file to feed the service manager. And s
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
No, please not - with 2.2 we have the official include feature and
imho this is sufficient for this.
Yeah, but technically speaking, this makes absolutely no difference, as
does nothing but expanding the contents of an xconf within
Yes, I know - so following your road w
Le 31 janv. 05, à 07:59, Sylvain Wallez a écrit :
You can do it right now. is handled exactly as an
xconf file to feed the service manager...
...This behaviour, although unofficial, is effective since day one in
the TreeProcessor. IMO, it's time to make it official.
+1
-Bertrand
smime.p7s
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
No, please not - with 2.2 we have the official include feature and
imho this is sufficient for this.
Yeah, but technically speaking, this makes absolutely no difference,
as does nothing but expanding the contents of an xconf
within
Yes, I know -
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
No, please not - with 2.2 we have the official include feature and
imho this is sufficient for this.
Yeah, but technically speaking, this makes absolutely no difference,
as does nothing but expanding the contents of an xconf
11 matches
Mail list logo
