> Adam R. B. Jack wrote: > > At the same time the Forrest folk divided to do some major (copyless) work, > > and they removed the ability to pass work/site location parameters to the > > batch file. Gump used these. > > They will be back somehow, don't worry :-)
No worries. As you said, we probably ought not default to using the batch mechanism (it is a waste of CPU/resource), and persuade them to use the dynamic webapplication instead. I've gone one further and remove the temptation, by removing the ability. ;-) I won't use it, so don't worry (from my part) about adding it again. > > Since I've not managed to install Forrest into > > TomCat (when I once tried it failed, and the Forrest guys were too busy w/ > > "copyless" to fix it), I started to feel the same pain as others. I finally > > decided I could cope no longer with the *effectively mandatory* Forrest > > dependency for Gump. The inability for Gump to generate pages w/o Forrest > > was too much. As it now stands Gump's page generator can now generate XHTML > > or XDOCS. The XHTML isn't pretty, but with a little CSS it is perfectly > > adequate [and we get colours again, as it looks w/ might w/ Forrest also]. > > Forrest can use html instead of xdocs to generate the site. This way we > could have a single generation system. Again, no worries. We have a single system, it just has a few if/else for XDOCS verses XHTML. I still want to use Forrest on the public Gump sites, these XDOCS are just for folks less inclined. It was (when I got ballsy) low hanging fruit, and ought reduce the on ramp to personal Gumps... regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
