Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> guys, could you share your visions or RT on this... I don't want this
> thread to be just dropped without any result.
yes, yes, the RT is coming. sorry, but I didn't have time these
days... busy doing paied stuff (yes, unfortunately, I do have to eat
sometimes :)
>
Hi Torsten,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 04:57:58PM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> guys, could you share your visions or RT on this... I don't want this
> thread to be just dropped without any result.
I agree. Lets nut this one out.
> More RT from me:
>
> Another possible sollution for a pe
guys, could you share your visions or RT on this... I don't want this
thread to be just dropped without any result.
More RT from me:
Another possible sollution for a per cocoon application configuration
would be to tie an optional xconf to (the mount point of) a sitemap.
Although I'm quite su
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> > People, please, order!
> >
> > The sense/nonsense ratio in this thread is dangerously low.
>
> Hm.. sorry, but I feel a bit defensive...
>
> When thinking about the way the user-roles are currently used I think it's
> only straight forward also to have a user.xconf (w
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> > I do see the need for componentized Cocoon apps, but in order to
> provide
> > this a significant number of things must change in Cocoon.
>
> Can we do this step by step? ;)
>
> Then, one of the steps might well be some changes in sitemap's component
> management infr
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> In order to integrate self-written components we currently only have
> user-roles to make these components available to the component manager.
> But the configuration of these components still needs to be added to the
> cocoon.xconf. This is IMHO dead ug
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> From: "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 3. Should we remove ability to define components in the sitemap, and
> > provide ability to declare components in the separate user.conf file
> > (optional, one per sitemap).
>
> My two cents:
>
> -
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 05 March 2002 09:21, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >
> >>. . .
> >>We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
> >>configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
> >>user.xconf
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:11:53PM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > > > We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
> > > > configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
> > > > user.xconf. (or better user-compon
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> From: "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In the interpreted sitemap engine, the section is
> > handled as regular component manager configuration (i.e. a .xconf file),
> > so you can add any component you wish in it.
> >
> > The only piece
> People, please, order!
>
> The sense/nonsense ratio in this thread is dangerously low.
Hm.. sorry, but I feel a bit defensive...
When thinking about the way the user-roles are currently used I think it's
only straight forward also to have a user.xconf (whatever you like to call
it). And the re
From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ken,
>
> Cocoon Blocks are *not* generators, transformers and the like, these are
> *components*, just implement different interfaces.
I know my dear, I know. They are not blocks *now*.
I used "blocks" simply because Blocks are pluggable and cleanl
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > From: "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > 3. Should we remove ability to define components in the sitemap,
and
> > > provide ability to declare components in the separate user.conf
file
> > > (o
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> From: "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 3. Should we remove ability to define components in the sitemap, and
> > provide ability to declare components in the separate user.conf file
> > (optional, one per sitemap).
>
> My two cents:
>
> - cocoon.xconf (b
From: "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3. Should we remove ability to define components in the sitemap, and
> provide ability to declare components in the separate user.conf file
> (optional, one per sitemap).
My two cents:
- cocoon.xconf (basic cocoon components, one only)
- user.xconf
> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > > In the interpreted sitemap engine, the section is
> > > handled as regular component manager configuration (i.e. a .xconf
> > > file), so you can add any component you wish in it.
>
> Hm... I wasn't aware of this fact. But question is: is
> > In the interpreted sitemap engine, the section is
> > handled as regular component manager configuration (i.e. a .xconf
> file),
> > so you can add any component you wish in it.
Hm... I wasn't aware of this fact. But question is: is this a desired
location for component configurations? I wou
> From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 05 March 2002 09:21, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >
> >>. . .
> >>We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
> >>configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
> >
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 06:17 am, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> platform. Having Tomcat in Phoenix, side by side to Cocoon and James is
> really cool, but are people going to use it this way?
Yes. I would love to see Cocoon the Servlet hosted under Phoenix. My Cocoon
app currently talks to a phoe
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:11:53PM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > > We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
> > > configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
> > > user.xconf. (or better user-components.xconf?)
> >
> > I've brought this up a cou
> > In order to integrate self-written components we currently only have
> > user-roles to make these components available to the component manager.
> > But the configuration of these components still needs to be added to the
> > cocoon.xconf. This is IMHO dead ugly and bad for upgrade and maintai
Hi Torsten!
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:21:40AM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> In order to integrate self-written components we currently only have
> user-roles to make these components available to the component manager.
> But the configuration of these components still needs to be added to the
>
From: "Torsten Curdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> First off... the replies seem to proove this is a useful feature
> (glad you like the idea :)
It fills a need :-)
> And I now propose to add the CascadingConfiguration to our codebase. If it
> makes it's way into Framework / Excalibur we can easily dr
First off... the replies seem to proove this is a useful feature
(glad you like the idea :)
And I now propose to add the CascadingConfiguration to our codebase. If it
makes it's way into Framework / Excalibur we can easily drop our version.
We should also add a javadoc comment that this class is
> >>
> single class) should we adopt the code in out codebase? As much as I hate
> duplicate code I also like to see this functionality!
> <<
> +1
>
> We definately need something like this. I suggest we go for the duplicate
> code as it would seem from your message that this is the only way..?
S
From: "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 05 March 2002 09:21, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >
> >>. . .
> >>We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
> >>configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
> >>user.xcon
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>On Tuesday 05 March 2002 09:21, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>>. . .
>>We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
>>configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
>>user.xconf. (or better user-components.xconf?)
>>. . .
>>
>
>From a
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 09:21, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>. . .
> We should be able to have a separate configuration besides the
> configuration for the core components. We should be able to define a
> user.xconf. (or better user-components.xconf?)
>. . .
>From a user's point of view, being able to d
ttp://www.need-a-cake.com
=
-Original Message-
From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [RT] user-components.xconf
In order to integrate self-writt
In order to integrate self-written components we currently only have
user-roles to make these components available to the component manager.
But the configuration of these components still needs to be added to the
cocoon.xconf. This is IMHO dead ugly and bad for upgrade and maintainace
cycles.
We
30 matches
Mail list logo
