> From: Dan Finkelstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Hi --
Hi! > I'm using 2.0 beta 1. When you're writing the doc for 2.0, the problems > I've been having might be useful to document. Thanks, this helps! > 1. On loading, I get errors that log4j isn't properly configured. I > added > a log4j initialization call in Dispatcher.init() and that seemed to do the > trick. (I grepped the sources but didn't see any explicit initialization > occurring. I also added simple properties file that log4j needed.) This is a FAQ in the yet-to-be-checked-in 2.0 manual. First a caveat: I'm not an expert in log4j, so I might be off base here. My general feeling is that log4j is really something that the container should be initializing, outside of the webapp. After all, you're typically going to want full logging when debugging, but minimal logging on the production box. Producing separate WARs for testing and deployment is not only a hassle, it's rather risky. My habit has been to provide default initialization to the JVM on startup using -Dlog4j.configuration=file:/path/to/maverick/tools/log4j.properties. > 2. When running friendship-velocity, it gave me errors that were only > resolved when I added in xalan.jar and xml-apis.jar. I had to download > xalan from jakarta since it wasn't in the distribution. The readme note > says to put them in the web server's lib directory. Could the friendship > war have been built with these files inside, which is more typical? I'll update the documentation regarding the xml-apis.jar... since jaxp is moving into the JDK itself, it doesn't seem like something that should be included in the WARs. Also, some containers put it on the classpath already, so this is really only a tomcat deployment issue. BTW, didn't a previous version of tomcat include jaxp? I don't remember having this problem before... oh well. I'm hesitant to include xalan.jar in the distribution. There are currently five sample applications in all of Maverick. The xalan jar itself is 800K, and it would be included in each of the WARs plus the maverick/lib directory. This would bloat the distributions by five megs or so. Also, not everyone uses xalan... theoretically, any jaxp-compliant processor will do, and some web containers (e.g. Orion) already include one. > 3. I'm interested in distributing different "skins" which would run > alongside the war file. Thus, I would like maverick.xml, the vm files, > html files, gif files, etc to live in a separate directory. I think > maverick is wired to expect them inside right now. What do you think of > this idea? It's definitely possible to have all the content (vm,html,images) in separate directories; paths are simply paths. At the moment, the maverick config file is hard-coded to WEB-INF/maverick.xml, although this could easily be made into a servlet init parameter. Is this what you have in mind? Also, would the shunting feature be of use to you for skinning? You could define each skin as a mode, and define views for all the modes. A custom Shunt could determine mode based on a session attribute. This would allow you to keep a single list of commands and controllers, and the Controllers wouldn't have to know anything about skins. If you want separate files just for the view lists, you could use entities to make the parser assemble the XML file for you. I figured out how this works (my sgml-fu grows stronger!) from reading the O'Reilly Docbook book. I'll put it in the FAQ. > I'll probably have more questions later.... Thanks for any help, No problem, and thanks for your input! Jeff Schnitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Mav-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mav-user
