Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:23:19 +0100 From: Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Release 2.1.9 (again) Joerg Heinicke wrote: On 10.03.2006 15:55, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Yep! Sorry, I have a crazy cahotic schedule lately. Development of the Dojo stuff is finished and I'm currently chasing a bug in IE. Commit should hopefully happen in a few hours. So, let's talk about a release date - which is mostly a monolog of Carsten ;) Thanks :) The older you get the more you enjoy talking to yourself... Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. +1 -- Giacomo Pati Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. +1. Dojo code is committed, and I'd like people to try the new forms samples. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez http://bluxte.net Apache Software Foundation Member
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again) [Dojo]
Sylvain Wallez said the following on 13-03-2006 10:47: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. +1. Dojo code is committed, and I'd like people to try the new forms samples. Great! Thanks! Haven't looked thoroughly at the code yet, but I'm wondering two things: 1. several special attributes (ajax=true and some Dojo required attributes) make it impossible to produce valid XHTML pages. A quick reading in some Dojo files showed that most dojo attributes can be replaced with classnames or identifiers, making valid XHTML pages still possible. Have you used any of those? Or are there other ways to produce valid XHTML pages that can already be incorporated in the current code? 2. Dojo contains a (rich text) editor, much along the lines of htmlarea. Have you compared the two and would it be possible to replace htmlarea with the Dojo version or are there features we would miss? In the latter case: if we stick with htmlarea, is it worthwhile to update to Xinha since that is a more active project around htmlarea? Once again thanks for the work. Bye, Helma
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again) [Dojo]
hepabolu wrote: Sylvain Wallez said the following on 13-03-2006 10:47: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. +1. Dojo code is committed, and I'd like people to try the new forms samples. Great! Thanks! Haven't looked thoroughly at the code yet, but I'm wondering two things: 1. several special attributes (ajax=true and some Dojo required attributes) make it impossible to produce valid XHTML pages. A quick reading in some Dojo files showed that most dojo attributes can be replaced with classnames or identifiers, making valid XHTML pages still possible. Have you used any of those? Or are there other ways to produce valid XHTML pages that can already be incorporated in the current code? The ajax=true attribute is used server-side by Cocoon and can be filtered out by the stylesheets. The dojoType attribute triggers the Dojo widget system. It can be written in 3 different ways depending on the context/requirements: - dojoType attribute (e.g. dojoType=CFormsRepeater) -- works everywhere - namespaced dojo:type attribute (e.g. dojo:type=CFormsRepeater) -- works on namespace-aware browsers - CSS class (e.g. class=dojo-CFormsRepeater) I used the dojoType attribute variant, now we may decide to use another one. However, some widgets _require_ foreign attributes to be present. These are the widget-specific properties. 2. Dojo contains a (rich text) editor, much along the lines of htmlarea. Have you compared the two and would it be possible to replace htmlarea with the Dojo version or are there features we would miss? In the latter case: if we stick with htmlarea, is it worthwhile to update to Xinha since that is a more active project around htmlarea? I haven't investigated in this area... Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez http://bluxte.net Apache Software Foundation Member
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again) [Dojo]
Sylvain Wallez said the following on 13-03-2006 11:32: hepabolu wrote: Sylvain Wallez said the following on 13-03-2006 10:47: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. +1. Dojo code is committed, and I'd like people to try the new forms samples. Great! Thanks! Haven't looked thoroughly at the code yet, but I'm wondering two things: 1. several special attributes (ajax=true and some Dojo required attributes) make it impossible to produce valid XHTML pages. A quick reading in some Dojo files showed that most dojo attributes can be replaced with classnames or identifiers, making valid XHTML pages still possible. Have you used any of those? Or are there other ways to produce valid XHTML pages that can already be incorporated in the current code? The ajax=true attribute is used server-side by Cocoon and can be filtered out by the stylesheets. Ah, that's nice. It's currently not filtered, i.e. present in the resulting code. Maybe something to add to the stylesheets before the release? The dojoType attribute triggers the Dojo widget system. It can be written in 3 different ways depending on the context/requirements: - dojoType attribute (e.g. dojoType=CFormsRepeater) -- works everywhere - namespaced dojo:type attribute (e.g. dojo:type=CFormsRepeater) -- works on namespace-aware browsers - CSS class (e.g. class=dojo-CFormsRepeater) I used the dojoType attribute variant, now we may decide to use another one. I have not enough knowledge of the various browsers, so I cannot figure out whether a namespaced dojo:type attribute is feasible to work with (a.o. which browsers do and don't support it). OTOH web designers in general (dealing mainly with CSS, graphics and layout) prefer valid XHTML + valid CSS before they are able to tackle the browser-inconsistencies in CSS. We might as well try to accommodate that (i.e. produce a valid XHTML page) by making sure that no transformation step introduces any (X)HTML errors nor warnings. In short: when the final page is not valid (X)HTML, this is due to errors made by the builder of the pipeline. However, some widgets _require_ foreign attributes to be present. These are the widget-specific properties. Nasty. Having chatted with some members of the Dojo community gave the impression that they don't care about valid (X)HTML as long as the javascript works. So there is a conflicting point of view. 2. Dojo contains a (rich text) editor, much along the lines of htmlarea. Have you compared the two and would it be possible to replace htmlarea with the Dojo version or are there features we would miss? In the latter case: if we stick with htmlarea, is it worthwhile to update to Xinha since that is a more active project around htmlarea? I haven't investigated in this area... Do you think it's worth the effort? Bye, Helma
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again) [Dojo]
Sylvain Wallez wrote: 1. several special attributes (ajax=true and some Dojo required attributes) make it impossible to produce valid XHTML pages. A quick reading in some Dojo files showed that most dojo attributes can be replaced with classnames or identifiers, making valid XHTML pages still possible. Have you used any of those? Or are there other ways to produce valid XHTML pages that can already be incorporated in the current code? The ajax=true attribute is used server-side by Cocoon and can be filtered out by the stylesheets. The dojoType attribute triggers the Dojo widget system. It can be written in 3 different ways depending on the context/requirements: - dojoType attribute (e.g. dojoType=CFormsRepeater) -- works everywhere - namespaced dojo:type attribute (e.g. dojo:type=CFormsRepeater) -- works on namespace-aware browsers - CSS class (e.g. class=dojo-CFormsRepeater) I used the dojoType attribute variant, now we may decide to use another one. However, some widgets _require_ foreign attributes to be present. These are the widget-specific properties. I'll second Helma's Nasty. Do you have a list of which widgets require these invalid attributes? I realize some people consider validation a nice-to-have at best, but for many it is a requirement, so this is potentially a serious problem. --Jason
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
On 10.03.2006 15:55, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Yep! Sorry, I have a crazy cahotic schedule lately. Development of the Dojo stuff is finished and I'm currently chasing a bug in IE. Commit should hopefully happen in a few hours. So, let's talk about a release date - which is mostly a monolog of Carsten ;) Jörg
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Joerg Heinicke wrote: On 10.03.2006 15:55, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Yep! Sorry, I have a crazy cahotic schedule lately. Development of the Dojo stuff is finished and I'm currently chasing a bug in IE. Commit should hopefully happen in a few hours. So, let's talk about a release date - which is mostly a monolog of Carsten ;) Thanks :) The older you get the more you enjoy talking to yourself... Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. WDYT? Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, SN AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Thanks :) The older you get the more you enjoy talking to yourself... Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. WDYT? Carsten +1 In the meantime, lets keep looking at patches in the queue.
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Ralph Goers wrote: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Thanks :) The older you get the more you enjoy talking to yourself... Anyways, given my current time constraints I can do the release not any sooner than the 31st of March - so, seeing this as a positive fact, we have a little more time to test everything :). I would call for a code freeze on the 24th of March then. WDYT? Carsten +1 In the meantime, lets keep looking at patches in the queue. +1. It sounds like a great plan. ;-) Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
Sharing the template block between 2.1 and 2.2 (was Re: Release 2.1.9 (again))
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 14:49 -0700, Jason Johnston wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 21:10 +, Upayavira wrote: Jason Johnston wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 08:46 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Bruno Dumon wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 06:35 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? I guess nothing changed since you last asked ;-) Not quite. A few days passed, which is all Sylvain said he needed. AFAIK that is all we are waiting for. It gets mentioned every time someone asks about the 2.1.9 release, so to keep the pattern going: what about the Template block from trunk? IIRC this was discussed and planned for inclusion in 2.1.9. Could you make a patch? That could make it happen. I would be glad to. But I would need guidance, since I know nothing about what is required. Is it just adding an svn:external to that block, or are there code changes involved? I just gave this a try to see if it needs any special work. Here's what I did or found out: * copied the java sources (src/main/java) * resources (src/main/resources): - 2.2 has imports for xconf and xroles, so for 2.1 I had to create a set of patch files (similar as is done for forms): nothing special here - the resources also contained a file template-instructions.xml, I copied this to the java sources * the template block needs the (new in 2.2) class TemplateObjectModelHelper, which is outside of the template block. I copied it in the sources of the template block * class JavascriptExpression and TemplateObjectModelHelper: require changes due to changed rhino API. For JavascriptExpression I simply commented out the code since it is not essential. * I got classcast exceptions when StringTemplateFactory and ExpressionFactory were looked up from the ServiceManager. The cause is that these classes don't have a service interface (their role is a concrete class). I introduced interfaces for them. * Added block to gump.xml and block.properties And then it worked. I tried it first with a simple test file and then with the forms block, and everything seems ok. - o - To summarize: if we want to have a shared codebase for the template block, things that need to handled: - introduce interface for StringTemplateFactory and ExpressionFactory == this is something I can do - don't make use of new rhino API features: I need someone else to look into this - Move template_instructions.xml between the java sources instead of the resources: I could do this, if nobody objects or knows a better way - TemplateObjectModelHelper: could duplicate it into 2.1 core Opinions? Objections? Help? -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Does anyone else have an opinion? Sylvain? Ralph Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: Le 9 mars 06 à 15:35, Ralph Goers a écrit : ...Seriously, are we there yet?.. I'd vote +1 for a release, even if stuff is unfinished (release early, release often), as long as (most of) our automated tests work. Haven't run them lately but I could find some time in the next few days. -Bertrand
Re: Sharing the template block between 2.1 and 2.2 (was Re: Release 2.1.9 (again))
* Bruno Dumon: And then it worked. I tried it first with a simple test file and then with the forms block, and everything seems ok. Great! Thanks a lot. -- Jean-Baptiste Quenot http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:52:41 +0100 Le 9 mars 06 à 15:35, Ralph Goers a écrit : ...Seriously, are we there yet?.. I'd vote +1 for a release, even if stuff is unfinished (release early, release often), as long as (most of) our automated tests work. If you want to keep the percentage up, and make most of more likely, my patch in COCOON-1779 adds a couple more tests which pass ;-) No changes to anything in src/java/, so it should be safe enough to apply... Andrew.
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Ralph Goers wrote: Does anyone else have an opinion? Sylvain? Yep! Sorry, I have a crazy cahotic schedule lately. Development of the Dojo stuff is finished and I'm currently chasing a bug in IE. Commit should hopefully happen in a few hours. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez http://bluxte.net Apache Software Foundation Member
Re: Sharing the template block between 2.1 and 2.2 (was Re: Release 2.1.9 (again))
Bruno Dumon wrote: ... - o - To summarize: if we want to have a shared codebase for the template block, things that need to handled: - introduce interface for StringTemplateFactory and ExpressionFactory == this is something I can do - don't make use of new rhino API features: I need someone else to look into this - Move template_instructions.xml between the java sources instead of the resources: I could do this, if nobody objects or knows a better way - TemplateObjectModelHelper: could duplicate it into 2.1 core Opinions? Objections? Help? Great work Bruno, thanks for doing that. I got only as far as the first step or two. ;-) A question: it appears that both the 2.1.x core and the template block contain the classes o.a.c.generation.JXTemplateGenerator and o.a.c.transformation.JXTemplateTransformer. In 2.1.x they're the old JX we know and love, and in the template block they point to the new JX. So when using those old classes in 2.1.x with the template block included, which version of JX gets used?
Re: Sharing the template block between 2.1 and 2.2 (was Re: Release 2.1.9 (again))
Jason Johnston wrote:
A question: it appears that both the 2.1.x core and the template block
contain the classes o.a.c.generation.JXTemplateGenerator and
o.a.c.transformation.JXTemplateTransformer. In 2.1.x they're the old JX
we know and love, and in the template block they point to the new JX.
So when using those old classes in 2.1.x with the template block
included, which version of JX gets used?
In 2.1.x the old generator should *not* extend the new generator and in the
template block we should simply remove the class. In order to do this and follow
our versioning policy, we have to deprecate the old implementations.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
___
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Hello Ralph! Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? Would someone like to take a look at this: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1777 I'm sorry thtat I nag you so late but my old mail service has been down and I gave up. Now, I have new provider and hope it will be better. PS. How to add a flag to the issue you mentioned before indicating there is patch provided? -- Grzegorz Kossakowski
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Bruno Dumon wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 06:35 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? I guess nothing changed since you last asked ;-) Not quite. A few days passed, which is all Sylvain said he needed. AFAIK that is all we are waiting for. Ralph
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Le 9 mars 06 à 15:35, Ralph Goers a écrit : ...Seriously, are we there yet?.. I'd vote +1 for a release, even if stuff is unfinished (release early, release often), as long as (most of) our automated tests work. Haven't run them lately but I could find some time in the next few days. -Bertrand smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 08:46 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Bruno Dumon wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 06:35 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? I guess nothing changed since you last asked ;-) Not quite. A few days passed, which is all Sylvain said he needed. AFAIK that is all we are waiting for. It gets mentioned every time someone asks about the 2.1.9 release, so to keep the pattern going: what about the Template block from trunk? IIRC this was discussed and planned for inclusion in 2.1.9.
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Jason Johnston wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 08:46 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Bruno Dumon wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 06:35 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? I guess nothing changed since you last asked ;-) Not quite. A few days passed, which is all Sylvain said he needed. AFAIK that is all we are waiting for. It gets mentioned every time someone asks about the 2.1.9 release, so to keep the pattern going: what about the Template block from trunk? IIRC this was discussed and planned for inclusion in 2.1.9. Could you make a patch? That could make it happen. Upayavira
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 21:10 +, Upayavira wrote: Jason Johnston wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 08:46 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Bruno Dumon wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 06:35 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? I guess nothing changed since you last asked ;-) Not quite. A few days passed, which is all Sylvain said he needed. AFAIK that is all we are waiting for. It gets mentioned every time someone asks about the 2.1.9 release, so to keep the pattern going: what about the Template block from trunk? IIRC this was discussed and planned for inclusion in 2.1.9. Could you make a patch? That could make it happen. I would be glad to. But I would need guidance, since I know nothing about what is required. Is it just adding an svn:external to that block, or are there code changes involved?
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Jason Johnston wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 21:10 +, Upayavira wrote: Jason Johnston wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 08:46 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Bruno Dumon wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 06:35 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: Hi. Its me again. Seriously, are we there yet? I guess nothing changed since you last asked ;-) Not quite. A few days passed, which is all Sylvain said he needed. AFAIK that is all we are waiting for. It gets mentioned every time someone asks about the 2.1.9 release, so to keep the pattern going: what about the Template block from trunk? IIRC this was discussed and planned for inclusion in 2.1.9. Could you make a patch? That could make it happen. I would be glad to. But I would need guidance, since I know nothing about what is required. Is it just adding an svn:external to that block, or are there code changes involved? Try it and see. Then ask questions about where you get stuck. (It likely won't be me answering - I won't know the answers, but the more pointed and precise the questions, the more likely they'll get answered). Regards, Upayavira
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Ralph Goers wrote: I am pinging again to see where we stand. AFAIK the only thing we are waiting for is Sylvain's blessing on Ajax. Also, does Ajax need to be marked stable since Forms depends on it? We experienced some strange problems with latest forms as some of our applications using javascript are not working properly anymore (all browsers on windows and linux). I did not have enough time to dive into the real problem - it might be our own code which needs to be adapted to latest forms or it might be a problem in the forms/ajax block. We downgraded to a svn snapshot just before the change to dojo and everything works perfectly. Hopefully, I'll have time by the end of next week to find the problem. Anyways, I think we should also mark the ajax block stable - as soon as we are confident that everything works as expected. What about the template block from 2.2? Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, SN AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Hi Carsten,
I checked out latest 2.1.X yesterday and had the same problems, nothing
client side (submit on change, other events) worked anymore. The error
was it could not find a lot of dojo related stuff, I just had to add a
match in the sitemap for the dojo javascript :
map:match pattern=resources/dojo/**
map:read src=resource://org/apache/cocoon/dojo/resources/{1}/
/map:match
Now they all work properly again. I haven't yet run a lot of test with
ajax enabled, but at first sight it seems to work better than the old
ajax system.
I don't know if this is your problem, just thought it worth mentioning
the new javascript location and the fact that they are working for me.
Simone
--
Simone Gianni
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Simone Gianni wrote:
Hi Carsten,
I checked out latest 2.1.X yesterday and had the same problems,
nothing client side (submit on change, other events) worked anymore.
The error was it could not find a lot of dojo related stuff, I just
had to add a match in the sitemap for the dojo javascript :
map:match pattern=resources/dojo/**
map:read src=resource://org/apache/cocoon/dojo/resources/{1}/
/map:match
Hmm... do you really need that?
With the Dojo stuff, I added a map:match
pattern=_cocoon/resources/*/** in the root sitemap, which allows any
block/jar to provide resources, which are mounted at a fixed location
(to increase browser cache efficiency).
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez
http://bluxte.net
Apache Software Foundation Member
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Ralph Goers wrote: I am pinging again to see where we stand. AFAIK the only thing we are waiting for is Sylvain's blessing on Ajax. Also, does Ajax need to be marked stable since Forms depends on it? Please wait a few more days (not more, promise!), I'm nearly finished with the new Ajax stuff, and we'll be able to mark Ajax stable also. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez http://bluxte.net Apache Software Foundation Member
Re: Release 2.1.9 (again)
Hi Sylvain,
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
map:match pattern=resources/dojo/**
map:read src=resource://org/apache/cocoon/dojo/resources/{1}/
/map:match
Hmm... do you really need that?
Yep, in my current situation i needed this. I'm not sure why, probably
because we developed custom stylesheets for forms and maybe altered a
bit the default resource uri :)
Simply I thought that since it's working very well here, the simplest
problem for nothing is working anymore could be that JS resources are
not loaded anymore due to the change from resources/ajax/js/ to
resources/dojo, expecially for applications migrating from 2.1.x9 and
2.1.X-9.
With the Dojo stuff, I added a map:match
pattern=_cocoon/resources/*/** in the root sitemap, which allows
any block/jar to provide resources, which are mounted at a fixed
location (to increase browser cache efficiency).
Yep, this is surely the best approach, il try to trim this application
of mine resources path so that it will load directly from the root sitemap.
Sylvain
Simone
--
Simone Gianni
