Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > <snip/> > > > > > > org.apache.cocoon.components.resolver.ResolverImpl has > > > to be changed to use the new Resolver from the excalibur > > > xmlutil package. > > > > Whoa, not so fast Carsten. I see that you have suddenly > > ripped out the comprehensive ResolverImpl.java and > > replaced it with a basic DefaultResolver.java ... Why? > > What is the reason for these drastic changes and why > > was there no discussion? > > It's not a drastic change.
Okay i should not have used the word "drastic". It appeared so to me because there was no indication of what had happened. > > This class was not marked as deprecated. Nicola Ken had > > already cleverly moved the deprecated Resolver.java into > > src/deprecated/ > > Yes, but ResolverImpl depends on Resolver, so you have a > dependency from the core to the deprecated package and > this has to be avoided. > > > We have also lost the ability to configure the entity > > resolver via cocoon.xconf which was one purpose of > > the ResolverImpl.java > > This is not true (unless it's a bug). Sorry, i was wrong and was seriously confused. Yes we can still do things like raise the verbosity level via cocoon.xconf It cannot be properly tested until the samples/misc/ is working again. I think that my main problem is that i was already distressed by three weeks of total loss of productivity with Cocoon development due to recent repository and build upheaval. Now the component that i was working on has been broken and i had no handle on how to start to fix it. > In fact, if you compare > the code, the new DefaultResolver is absolutely the same as > the old ResolverImpl, so it should still be configurable and > working as the old one. Aha. After a few more wasted hours of wandering around the code i see that you have moved the whole thing over to Excalibur as DefaultEntityResolver. Now it makes sense. If only you had given a useful cvs log message or a short email or changes.xml > If anything is not working the way it should, it's simply a > bug which has to be fixed. Okay ... there is a massive bug somewhere that has to be fixed. --David
