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.
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 > > >
