Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file

[Upayavira]

Ralph Goers wrote:

This looks fine to me.  If you'd like me to do it I'd be happy to, but I
won't be able to do it until sometime next week.
 

Go for it.

Some time next week sounds good - it wouldn't get committed this week 
anyway, because of the code freeze.

Upayavira

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Upayavira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file

Ralph Goers wrote:

 

I was thinking I would just look at the child nodes of the root. If they
   

are
 

all <patch-action> then they are all patches.

   

That all feels a little magic to me. How about
<patches>
 <xconf xpath="/cocoon/blah/xxxx" .....>
    <node/>
 </xconf>
 <xconf xpath="/cocoon/blah/xxyy" ...>
   <anothernode/>
 </xconf>
</patches>
Thus, it is the root node that states that what comes are a number of 
patches, and the contents are a number of patch nodes much like existing 
files.

Seems the best to me, and probably the easiest to implement.

Upayavira

 

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file

Ralph Goers wrote:

   

I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I
didn't want to add two features in one patch.
Doing this could actually be pretty easy.  Currently, it looks at the root
node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child
nodes are some sort of "patch" node,
  

     

At the moment all nested content will be copied to the document to be 
patched.
So we need a switch, an attribute on root for instance, or a namespace?
or:
if the root node has no attributes, the child nodes are interpreted as 
"patch" nodes.

Claas