Even better :) Eric
-----Original Message----- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [proposal] smaller root sitemap Maybe I misunderstood Antonio, but I believe that sitemap.xconf would contain the cocoon.xconf definitions as well as the generators, actions, etc. I'm not sure I'd see the point in requiring two xconf files. Ralph Eric Jacob said: > Hi, > > I don't want to interfere, I'm not a Cocoon committer but I've used Cocoon over a year now and I totally agree with Ralph, Sylvain and in particular Antonio. A sitemap.xconf and sitemap.xmap, splitting declaration and invocation of the components, seems the best solution IMO. > > But you should not forget cocoon.xconf. For example, if I want the portal block, you need to add some components (authentication, aspect, session, etc.) to your cocoon.xconf. What I think would be really nice is a minimal cocoon.xconf and sitemap.xconf in WEB-INF. The users should never have to change these files! > > In addition, block specific components should only be present in block specific sitemap.xmap (pipelines), sitemap.xconf (components declaration) and cocoon.xconf (components configuration). > > WDYT? > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [proposal] smaller root sitemap > > This sounds great to me. > > Ralph > > > Antonio Gallardo said: >> Hi: >> >> What about a sitemap.xconf? One in the root application directory and "if >> needed" others sitemap.xconf as we have subsitemaps. >> >> The idea of a cocoon.xconf that will address this is "scary" to me, because user can get easily confused. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Antonio Gallardo > > > >
