Hi Stephan, could you please revert your changes? Joerg already asked you to do so and I think we should either revert or change the current behaviour. It's really annoying to have all this "Dismiss" messages. There are hundreds of them that weren't there before.
Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks > XConfToolTask.java > > On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote: > > > In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had > separate targets > > for the patch files. But it was incredible slow. Then I merge these > > targets to one target, and rewrote to the XConf task to a > > MatchingTask, which allow to execute more than one patches. > > But it doesn't preserves the dependencies, then Carsten cuts the > > target in to several target again, to solve this problem. > > Now, with latest change it works again. > > > > I tend to agree with you Joerg, separate targets are much > more elegant. > > But in the real world I have real problems, like a build > time von 4min > > 25sec on a 2.4GHz Intel system. Which is, by the way, unacceptable, > > IMHO. > > > > So, should I revert the change to have a more elegant build > file with > > bigger build time?! .... ehrmm ... I think not. > > To be honest, such statements enrage me at least a bit. You > talk about time, but you forget the time to maintain this > additional dependency resolving. Starting with the missing > .xweb patches you have now to go on searching for bugs - > things that already have been working. For having a look on > this issue I removed ojb, database and hsqldb block from the > excluded ones. A simple build (Cocoon was previously built > with only cforms and xsp enabled) - and many patches of those > blocks were not applied. Only a clean build made it working - > partly, see above. If I need to do every time a clean build > to get this thing correctly working, I don't see how you can > gain time. This might be only a simple bug somewhere, maybe > only a typo - but I talk about the principle - which, I know, > often ends in obstinacy. > > IMO, yes, we should revert it. I prefer the elegancy much > more about the speed. And to add Carsten's argument: > Additionally it forces us "keeping the dependencies correct". > > Excuse me, if I have forgotten to add 'rant' around it ... > > Joerg > >
