Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-10 Thread Daniel Fagerstrom
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ... Carsten and Leszek addressed most of the other points. ehmmm, all right, ... but where did the standard sitemap components go? [sound of stefano searching] oh, here they are context://WEB-INF/xconf/cocoon-core-sitemap.xconf but the main sitemap doesn't link the

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-07 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Leszek Gawron wrote: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: And I agree, not having the "jx" transformer/generator in the core anymore is really annoying. If you forget to include the template block it breaks your application immediately. But I hope we will fix this, as well. I do not get it. It's like sayi

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-07 Thread Mark Lundquist
On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Leszek Gawron wrote: I do not get it. It's like saying "if you forget to tank your car will stop - how annoying" :). What I mean is that the same problem applies to any block (i.e. forms). It's just jx and forms tend to be most "core" ones. I think it was a good

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-07 Thread Leszek Gawron
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: And I agree, not having the "jx" transformer/generator in the core anymore is really annoying. If you forget to include the template block it breaks your application immediately. But I hope we will fix this, as well. I do not get it. It's like saying "if you forget to tank

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-07 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > However, to me "fatness" in distribution is somewhat moot point nowadays. I > have had some concerns over the runtime RAM footprint, but have no conclusive > numbers, whether it is a leak problem, or just caching going nuts. Scheduled > server restarts doesn't sound li

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-07 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > With a serious diet and an improved build system, cocoon could lose half > of its weight and generate webapps that are much more friendly for > smaller sites or for inclusion in places where size is an issue. > > But even when size is not an issue, having smaller

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-06 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Friday 07 October 2005 14:15, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > so I think you're trying to put words into my mouth. Maybe you hate him for that ;o) > Ok, now let's get back to the technical discussion... Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > But even when size is not an issue, having smaller webapps helps i

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-06 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Carsten hates me when I "just talk", so here is some action: let's > measure cocoon's fat. > LOL - I really hope that you don't mean this that seriously. Just to be clear, I don't hate anyone just because he is not doing something or is doing the "wrong" thing or whatev

Re: Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-06 Thread Torsten Curdt
With a serious diet and an improved build system, cocoon could lose half of its weight and generate webapps that are much more friendly for smaller sites or for inclusion in places where size is an issue. But even when size is not an issue, having smaller webapps helps in making users perce

Cocoon Fat Test

2005-10-06 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Carsten hates me when I "just talk", so here is some action: let's measure cocoon's fat. Follow me and type the following in your terminal svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/ \ cocoon svn co http://simile.mit.edu/repository/linotype/trunk/ linotype export COC