On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 20:51, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > On 15.03.2004 17:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27600 > > > > syntax for unique rows in repeater binding > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-15 16:57 ------- > > More and more I doubt that this might be the way to go, chasing any kind of > > xml-file though the XSLT processor to update some minor syntax changes in > > repeater binding. I bet there only few users need do update only a few files. I > > think it's not worth the risk. I'm quite sure there are still more uncoverd > > issues in connection to the XSLT processing of unpredictable user files. While > > we don't have a solution, I think we should disable the automatic update feature. > > Ok, asking the list: in which way shall we handle the update in the > repeater syntax? The problem is that through an XSLT process the DOCTYPE > must get lost, no chance to save it. I don't find it that problematic as > no Woody file does have a DTD, but of course users can have added their > own ones. > > a) Ignore the problems (removal of DOCTYPE). > > b) Point out the possible problem before asking the user for the > src.dir. The user will probably have to start the update process > multiple times for specifying deeper directory hierarchies to avoid > touching unrelated files (or we provide a loop). > > c) Let him specify a binding.dir or patternset explicitely (binding > files are the only files that must be processed by an XSLT at the moment). > > d) Do not handle the syntax change automatically at all.
e) Use a text-based search and replace. This preserves the layout of the XML (which I consider to be rather important since these files are mostly hand-edited). -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
