On Saturday 11 May 2002 16:48, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> On Friday 10 May 2002 19:08, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > Argh... is it a bug or did someone changed the sitemap behaviour?
> >
> > We define and configure all our components (cocoon and custom) in the
> > cocoon.xconf. Now we upgraded some projects to HEAD from a couple of days
> > ago.
> >
> > All we have inside our sitemaps (regarding the component configurations)
> > are the definitions for the default generators, serializers etc. like
> > this:
> >
> > <map:components>
> > <map:generators default="file"/>
> > <map:transformers default="xslt"/>
> > <map:readers default="resource"/>
> > <map:serializers default="html"/>
> > <map:selectors default="browser"/>
> > <map:matchers default="wildcard"/>
> > </map:components>
> >
> > Seems like now the root sitemap requires to have the component
> > configurations inside... which would put me into a lot trouble if this
> > will be the same even for sub-sitemaps =:-O
> >
> > Was there any intentional change regarding this (which I obviously would
> > have missed) or am I just facing some kind of bug or even just a
> > configuration / installation problem ?!?
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > ...will try to find more details on that
> > stay tuned...
>
> Ok... I now tried with lastest Tomcat as well as with Resin - same
> behaviour:
>
> org.apache.avalon.framework.configuration.ConfigurationException: Type
> 'xml' is not defined for 'serialize' at
> file:/opt/resin/current/webapps/desire/sitemap.xmap:36:0
> at
> org.apache.cocoon.components.treeprocessor.TreeBuilder.getTypeForStatement(
>TreeBuilder.java:525)
>
> because I used <map:serialize type="xml"/> inside the sitemap although the
> XMLSerializer is configured in the cocoon.xconf only.
>
> Anyone an idea?
from DefaultTreeBuilder.java:
selector = (ComponentSelector)this.manager.lookup(role);
...
if (!selector.hasComponent(type)) {
// the Exception I see
}
I just remembered some comments about "hasComponent" from Berin:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=101138070110185&w=2
1. should really be hasComponent be used then?
2. were there any changes regarding this behaviour lately?
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
