Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> 
> I agree with you, we definitely need a way to specify new components
> outside of Cocoon. The problem right now seems to be quite complex, as
> you need to add the new component not only in the sitemap, but also in
> Roles.java and cocoon.roles.

Please read the documentation at
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/developing.index.html
This covers in detail the structure of the "cocoon.xconf" file, which
BTW, can specify sitemap components.  It also covers the correct idioms
for Component naming and ROLE referencing.  Cocoon has now adopted these
idioms, and the Roles.java file is not necessary.  The "cocoon.xconf"
can accept an attribute at the root level called "user-roles" to allow
you to refer to an external roles document.

<cocoon version="2.0" user-roles="additional.roles"/>

You don't _have_ to use the roles document either--the configuration
file has a standard markup that is on the verbose side.

The above link will help straighten out all of those issues.

> The same problem exists with logicsheets, which need to be specified
> to cocoon.xconf. Another problem is that currently the XSP developer
> that uses a logicsheet needs to know the dependency graph of all the
> logicsheets the logicsheet depends on. This is flawed and we need to
> correct it.

This has been addressed to some degree.  Have you tried this recently?
I know Dims put some work into it.

> And yes, I do agree with you that CPAN is a very nice system for
> distributing new components. I especially like the part about
> recording the dependency not only on given packages, but also on
> specific versions of them.

The Avalon team is very aware of these issues, and are trying to
deal with issues of trust and versioning for Server ARchives (SAR
files) and Block ARchives (BAR files).  When we get these in order,
we will also address simple Components.  You may integrate your own
Components into Cocoon's space though.  Just check out the document
I referenced above.  You will find that Avalon is pretty flexible.

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to