Well, the book was written long before the cvs move was even thought of - in fact IIRC it was written fairly early even in the life of 2.0.x (around 2.0.2?) so it is even out of date with that branch in places. But that is in no way a knock against the book. It does an excellent job of explaining the core concepts. I think the authors (who are all very involved in cocoon and on these lists) do maintain an errata page somewhere but don't know if it was mentioned in the book.
Based on your interest in learning the framework, it sounds like you are best off using 2.1, studying the book but stay on the lookout for differences. Ultimately, you'll need to check against the code, the current docs (at the site, or built locally), the wiki (http://wiki.cocoondev.org) and these lists when you suspect a conflict or change. Regrettably, the official documentation in some places will be the least reliable at the moment. Let us know any problems you spot. If something doesn't work as expected you should be suspicious of your information before cocoon. It of course is not perfect but it is actively worked on by a lot of people and something obvious like huge sections of the samples not working would not go 24 hours without notice. The 2.1 branch is being prepared for beta stage, so it should be very stable right now. Geoff > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Doust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 5:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: I may be wrong but... > > > Thanks Geoff, > The book says to get xml-cocoon2 from cvs (if you want to compile it > yourself). > I didn't notice any advice in the book notifying me that I ought to look > on-line at any errata page. That might have helped. Do you have > any input to > the authors and or publisher? > Do you know, are there any huge differences between 2.0 and 2.1 that would > make it better for me to use 2.0? I'm more interested in learning the > framework and using than learning the book. I always buy the books to > support the open source projects and because I like to read at other > locations than sitting at my computer. > Thanks again. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 5:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: I may be wrong but... > > > You are working with the wrong repository. They were switched > around a few > months ago and the soft links between them do not function as they were > supposed to - as a result that repository is stuck in time (and had the > exact build problem you noticed which cropped up right before the name > migration and was fixed soon after). The correct repository names are: > > cocoon-2.1 (build.properties is at version 1.21 or so) > cocoon-2.0 > > If you're trying to work with the latest work, you want > cocoon-2.1. If you > want a version that will be closer to what you see in the book, use > cocoon-2.0. The current release of 2.0 is 2.0.4 but there are some bug > fixes in head that make it worth getting 2.0.5 if you don't have a problem > with cvs. > > Where did you find the instructions to use xml-cocoon2 so we can > work to fix > them. > I think though having been through this with unsuspecting users a > few times > now, > we need to take a second look at ways to more agressively point people in > the right > place. > > Though it was painful the name change helped a lot - cvs was > really bogging > down > on two active branches with a lot of changes. Sorry it's burned you. > > Geoff > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Doust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:32 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: I may be wrong but... > > > > > > I downloaded xml-cocoon2 from cvs to my local file system today. The tip > > revision of build.properties that came to my system, (rev 1.15) reads as > > follows: > > > > #---------------------------------------------- > > # Cocoon Build Properties > > #---------------------------------------------- > > > > # NOTE: don't modify this file directly but copy the properties you need > > # to modify over to a file named 'local.build.properties' and > modify that. > > # The build system will overwrite these properties with the ones in the > > # 'local.build.properties' file. > > > > # ---- > > Webapp > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > exclude.webapp.documentation=true > > exclude.webapp.javadocs=true > > exclude.webapp.scratchpad=true > > exclude.webapp.samples=true > > > > exclude.scratchpad=true > > exclude.deprecated=true > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > > Notice that the exclude.webapp.documentation and exclude.webapp.samples > > etal. are _not_ commented out. In order to build these targets > > build.properties has to be modified. > > > > But that's okay because really the result of the build doesn't > > work in many > > more ways than that. I got rid of that code and went with the stable (?) > > 2.1m2 release that's made available as a zip from somewhere and > > built it and > > it works fine. I'll just go with that. > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:39 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: I may be wrong but... > > > > > > We're either looking at different files or you are misunderstanding > > something > > you're seeing. Which property are you looking at specifically? > > > > Geoff > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard Doust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:52 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: I may be wrong but... > > > > > > > > > In the latest code (tip) that I brought down from cvs today, > the exclude > > > properties are _not_ commented out in the build.properties > file. It was > > > necessary for me to edit this file and comment them out. > > > Is it the case that I shouldn't be bringing down the tip? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:58 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: I may be wrong but... > > > > > > > > > You are right that properties in ant once set are not > modified. If you > > > look carefully the values that depend on any value are > commented out in > > > build.properties - uncommenting them in your local copy will > accomplish > > > exactly what is meant. > > > > > > Also notice the order in which the properties are read: > > > > > > <!-- Allow users a chance to override without editing the > > > main file --> > > > <property file="${user.home}/cocoon.build.properties"/> > > > <property file="local.build.properties"/> > > > > > > <!-- Get the build properties from an external file --> > > > <property file="build.properties"/> > > > > > > <!-- Allow users a chance to override without editing the > > > main file --> > > > <property file="${user.home}/cocoon.blocks.properties"/> > > > <property file="local.blocks.properties"/> > > > > > > <!-- Get the block properties from an external file --> > > > <property file="blocks.properties"/> > > > > > > So, the cocoon.build.properties in your homedirectory is loaded first, > > > then the local.build.properties, then build.properties. The first one > > > to set the value wins, and Cocoon gives you two shots at them before > > > the default apply. > > > > > > HTH, > > > Geoff > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Richard Doust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:45 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: I may be wrong but... > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not certain I'm right, but I have the sneaking suspicion that > > > > the build > > > > the way it's written right now cannot possibly work. As far > as I know, > > > > there's no way to unset a property in ant. The "unless" > attribute of a > > > > target will not build the target if the property is "set". As > > > far as I can > > > > see, this means if it has any value at all. The only way to > > > > overcome this is > > > > to modify build.properties to remove the setting of those > > > property values. > > > > It cannot be overridden by copying build.properties to > > > > local.build.properties and modifying that as suggested > > because it's not > > > > possible to define them to a non-value. > > > > I have commented those properties out of build.properties (and > > > > local.build.properties) and this has solved my problem. > > > > That's my two cents worth. > > > > Rich > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
