Joerg Heinicke dijo: > On 30.03.2004 11:44, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> Because the current detection is based on the presence of the >> "exclude.block.xyz" rather than its value, is that right? > > I guess this was "once upon a time". The current version even allows > exclude.block.xyz=false and handles this the same way as the property > would not be there because of the > <condition> > <istrue/> > </condition> > construct. So it's more a bad documentation at the moment. Quote from > blocks.properties: "Remove blocks from your cocoon distribution by > uncommenting the corresponding exclude property."
It was never was as documented, because of the Ant properties nature, always was the posibility to set exclude.block.xyz=[false, true]: http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/property.html I meet this first while imported the OJB block and I don't wanted to compile it by default. >>> ...So when doing it - what it is a good thing - we have to change the >>> build process in relation to blocks selection. Isn't it possible to >>> switch to include.block.{blockname}={true|false} syntax... >> >> I'd be +1 on this, "include.block.xyz" makes more sense. > > We can do it with changed documentation using exclude.block.xyz=false. > As local.blocks.properties is loaded before blocks.properties and > properties can not be reset, this would work. > > I personally prefer the other way around: include.block.xyz - including > the consequences of forcing users to recopy the blocks.properties and > resetting their blocks selection. > > I already have the include way working. It's backward compatible as long > as the exclude=false is not already used. > > WDYT? Change only the documentation (to "use true|false") or > additionally the property names from exclude to include. +1 for Change only the documentation (to "use true|false") because in fact this is the way t currently works. +0 for additionally the property names from exclude to include. It is just a matter of name. The question here is what is easier: define included or excluded blocks. In my case, I have more excluded blocks than included ones. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
