greetings.
thanx a lot for your options. it solves my problem, piece of cake to both.
Scott, actually the fact that i should place <views> and <commands> in each
file is not an issue for my app since Maverick supports xsl transformation
for its configuration and i use this feature and appreciate very much.
based on your options i've decided to split config into files like that:
workflow.xml
----------------------
<component>
<tableCommand name="inbox" class="blah"/>
<createObject model="bla-bla-bla" path="blah.jsp."/>
........
</component>
---------------------
holding.xml
---------------------
<component>
<tableCommand name="businesses" class="blah"/>
<createObject name="createBusiness" model="blah"
path="jsp/holding/createBusiness.jsp."/>
........
</component>
---------------------
maverick.xml
--------------------
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE application [
<!ENTITY workflow SYSTEM "workflow.xml">
<!ENTITY holding SYSTEM "holding.xml">
........
]>
<application>
&workflow;
&holding;
....
</application>
-------------------
and maverick.xsl, that translates my specific tags into <command>'s,
<view>'s, etc. and dispatcher servlet configured to use it.
if u've read till here then first i'd like to thank u for that and second
ask whether things can be done simplier and more manageable than in solution
listed above?
cheers,
yurazlin.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Hernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:ScottHernandez@;hotmail.com>>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:mav-user@;lists.sourceforge.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Mav-user] q: multiple config files
> Yeah, not to knit-pic too much, but if you want views and commands in the
> same xml file you've got a fragment.
>
> ---- part1.xml ----
> <views>
> <view>
> ....
> </></>
> <commands>
> <command>
> ...
> </></>
>
> Anyway, the xsl option is a little heavy, I agree. But hey, it is an
option.
>
> In my experience the entity inclusion procedure leads to xml fragments.
For
> clarity I would recommend renaming the entity inclusion files to something
> other than xml as they are not valid xml documents (in some cases).
>
> Yurii, I hope one of these options will work for you.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Schnitzer, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:JSchnitzer@;maxis.com>>
> > From: Scott Hernandez [mailto:ScottHernandez@;hotmail.com]
> >
> > The unfortunate side affect of doing this entity inclusion is that the
> > partX.xml files are xml fragments and not well-formed documents. XLink
> > provides a better alternative but is implementation bound. Not all xml
> > processors/parsers support the XLink syntax.
>
> Well, aside from missing the <?xml version="1.0"?> directive, the entity
> inclusion fragments can be well-formed documents.
>
> Part1.xml could be this:
>
> <commands>
> <command name="blah">
> ...
> </command>
> </commands>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> <http://thinkgeek.com/sf>
> [INVALID FOOTER]
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Are you worried about
your web server security? Click here for a FREE Thawte
Apache SSL Guide and answer your Apache SSL security
needs: http://www.gothawte.com/rd523.html
[INVALID FOOTER]
