Glen Ezkovich wrote:
Some how I missed this yesterday when I sent my post and consequently
sent garbage. I apologize for the noise.
On Nov 22, 2004, at 4:12 AM, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
Hi,
I need to put two forms onto one page.
Scenario: a homepage showing a selection of
On 23 Nov 2004, at 20:52, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Some people asked for a comparison when Daisy 1.0 was released but
this page is
still empty:
http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon-lenya/Comparisons
Heh. I hate product comparisons with a passion, just as I hate filling
out endless forms on
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
snip what=Info about taglib/
About faces block; usage of taglib block there provided for an easy
migration path of JSP JSF taglibs into Cocoon Faces taglibs, and
final result is such that I can use very similar JSP JSF pages
Ralph Goers wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
[snip]
People who help are going to need to get their
hands dirty in the xdocs and java code sources anyway.
I believe only committers can check in changes to xdocs and java code.
There are several folks who aren't committers who, I believe, would like
Reinhard Poetz escribió:
snip/
We also have to consider that we have more independant blocks very soon,
means that we have the goal that each block can be released seperatly
and IMO it should provide its own docs.
snip/
Hello Reinhard,
you may want to have a look in the new plugin system of
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 23 nov. 04, à 10:53, oceatoon a écrit :
...Is different JS really coded for different browsers? I thought
there were
only those with JS and those without, in the second case validation
would
go back to Server Side but no different version of scripts...
your
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 23 nov. 04, à 10:53, oceatoon a écrit :
...Is different JS really coded for different browsers? I thought
there were
only those with JS and those without, in the second case validation would
go back to Server Side but no different version of scripts...
your (future)
I think that client-side validation is a very common use case. I'm
writing a XSL to apply in the pipeline just after the cform
generation.
If anyone want client-side validation (always in adding to the
server-side validation and never in place of) just insert a
transformer specifyng the XSL and
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32342.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Jonas Ekstedt wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:51 +0100, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
snip...
The main question now IMO is what tag framework we should base JXTG 2.0
on. The candidates that has been mentioned this far are: Jelly, the
taglib, Carsten's taglib and Jonas taglib (are there more
Luca Garulli wrote:
I think that client-side validation is a very common use case. I'm
writing a XSL to apply in the pipeline just after the cform
generation.
If anyone want client-side validation (always in adding to the
server-side validation and never in place of) just insert a
but it's normal that people try to compare the different features of
CMS, there are plenty of CMS projects (somewhat 100 in the
http://cmsmatrix.org/matrix) .. install and try all the CMS is not
feasible. first we must be able to filter quickly some CMS that
aren't available for our projet, and
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
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:37:06 +0100, oceatoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then don't you have double validation ?
Yes, server side validation must be always guarantee. Client side
validation is useful basically for two reasons:
1. avoid unnecessary server load
2. some customer doesn't want
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:26:32 +0100, Reinhard Poetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
snip introductory comments/snip
After your proposal of splitting up component declarations I think we should
try
to implement all things in Cocoon 2.2 that are needed for real blocks as they
oceatoon wrote:
But then don't you have double validation ?
talking about performance client side validation removes some load
(execution time) off the server, which is allways appreciated
Yes, you have double validation. But when an error occurs it is more
responsive to the client. Server
Quote Peter Hunsberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
snip/
- a block has a
* root sitemap (well, pipelines, views, sitemap components)
* sitemap-buildins.xconf (sitemap component declarations)
* block.xconf (all non-sitemap component declarations)
One question: why two xconf files
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:26:32 +0100, Reinhard Poetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
snip introductory comments/snip
After your proposal of splitting up component declarations I think we should try
to implement all things in Cocoon 2.2 that are needed for real
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:26:32 +0100, Reinhard Poetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
snip introductory comments/snip
After your proposal of splitting up component declarations I think we
should try
to implement all things in Cocoon 2.2
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I once proposed that validators could produce a small snippet of JS
that would be included in the produced page. However, this somehow
mixes some client-side technology in the validators which isn't a good
thing.
So the idea now is that a validator produces an XML
Le 24 nov. 04, à 12:42, Guido Casper a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 23 nov. 04, à 10:53, oceatoon a écrit :
...Is different JS really coded for different browsers? I thought
there were
only those with JS and those without, in the second case validation
would
go back to Server Side but
Le 24 nov. 04, à 13:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
...If you do it in xdoc, beware that you will end up the administrator
of the
table (integrating commits from non-committers)...
FYI I volunteer to help maintaining this file based on info provided by
non-commiters, so that David does not have
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:16:16 -0800, Miles Elam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 11:30 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:44:24 -0800, Miles Elam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So what do you say to function sources?
Interesting. Did you read my post yesterday on
On 24 Nov 2004, at 13:52, Nicolas Maisonneuve wrote:
for me , i hate compare 100 similar products because the developpers
doesn't answer correctly to this questions before developp another
CMS:
Sorry about my use of the hate word.
I'll refrain from judging myself what questions developers *have*
ha... thanks steven for this link (that finally answer to my original
question ;-) )
nicolas
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:55:12 +0100, Steven Noels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Nov 2004, at 13:52, Nicolas Maisonneuve wrote:
for me , i hate compare 100 similar products because the developpers
Guys,
I am trying to inject a classloader into cocoon
by using the ParanoidServlet.
In the web.xml I specified the ParanoidServlet
class and passed in my ClassLoader class (not
extending ParanoidClassLoader) as parameter.
Now when Cocoon comes up I see the
following:
...
24 Nov 2004 19:42:28 -
This seems a bit obvious, but you did build and include the paranoid block
jar?
Ralph
Torsten Curdt said:
Guys,
I am trying to inject a classloader into cocoon
by using the ParanoidServlet.
In the web.xml I specified the ParanoidServlet
class and passed in my ClassLoader class (not
On Nov 24, 2004, at 2:31 AM, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
snip/
I think one problem is our flowscript API:
This is exactly what I was thinking.
var form = new Form(...);
form.show(mypipeline, bizdata);
This way you can only show one form a page. Maybe we can do
somethink like
var multiform = new
On Nov 24, 2004, at 6:37 AM, oceatoon wrote:
Luca Garulli wrote:
I think that client-side validation is a very common use case. I'm
writing a XSL to apply in the pipeline just after the cform
generation.
If anyone want client-side validation (always in adding to the
server-side validation and
Here are some ideas about how to implement JXTG 2.0. I will not have
time do start doing any implementation work in the next week or so. But
I write down my ideas this far if somebody else (Leszek or Jonas e.g.)
feels like starting the work (and above that happen to be interested in
my design
Ralph Goers wrote:
This seems a bit obvious, but you did build and include the paranoid block
jar?
This is a doh experience because it's seems you
can only use them together.
...but yes of course I did include it :-)
Anyway I guess I know now how to solve this
cheers
--
Torsten
On Nov 24, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:16:16 -0800, Miles Elam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes. The src attribute is a String. What you do with that String
has always been implementation dependent. It's just that the
implementation has always (?) been to use
Steven Noels wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon-lenya/Comparisons
Heh. I hate product comparisons with a passion
The Lenya community is offering that page for all sides. I would really like to
see a comparison written by a Daisy developer or supporter. I am sure you are
well aware of weak
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:15:27 -0800, Miles Elam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:16:16 -0800, Miles Elam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes. The src attribute is a String. What you do with that String
has always been
Guys
Is anybody using the ApplicationCopletAdapter? I find it very annoying
to dig a day in the sources, to figure out how to configure that stuff
and finally to observe there are parts missing.
I'd like the author to write some xdocs, javadocs, or samples to enlight
others about how to use
[catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used
although the use of the FormsGenerator is possible. Does this have a
special reason?
The FormsGenerator produces an XML representation of the
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 18:07 +0100, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Jonas Ekstedt wrote:
The idea of the transformer is to be a replacement for JXTG.
Citing Vadim talking about JXTG 2.0: The problem I'm seeing with this is
that
JXTG should be implemented as *generator*, with template
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:57:13 +0100, Sylvain Wallez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used
although the use of the FormsGenerator is possible. Does
Well, svn indicates this was checked in by Carsten on behalf of
non-committers. We can either wait to see if Carsten knows how they work
or email the author.
Ralph
Giacomo Pati said:
Guys
Is anybody using the ApplicationCopletAdapter? I find it very annoying
to dig a day in the sources,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys,
let me chip in. First: big hooray to David for proposing a plan for actual
documentation writing!
Now: Start doing it!
Yes, the only way with these things is for someone to start
and to enable others to help.
I see this thread end in a discussion on where to write
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
...If you do it in xdoc, beware that you will end up the
administrator of the table (integrating commits from
non-committers)...
FYI I volunteer to help maintaining this file based on info provided
by non-commiters, so that David does not
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I think having a 40Kb sitemap for a just a few pipelines scares people
way and makes the learning curve steeper.
here is my proposal for Cocoon 2.2:
1) move the current webapp/sitemap.xmap into webapp/WEB-INF/sitemap.xmap
2) make the sitemaps inherit from that one
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project cocoon-block-fop has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
I updated the Cocoon website today and then
tried to clean up the instructions on the
Wiki page CocoonWebsiteUpdate. Would another
committer please try to follow thos instructions
--David
David Crossley wrote:
I updated the Cocoon website today and then
tried to clean up the instructions on the
Wiki page CocoonWebsiteUpdate. Would another
committer please try to follow thos instructions
--David
I'm curious. I see that the news page changed. Why didn't
David Crossley wrote:
I updated the Cocoon website today and then
tried to clean up the instructions on the
Wiki page CocoonWebsiteUpdate. Would another
committer please try to follow thos instructions
Wierd. Never mind. My browser must have cached the page. I did a reload
and all is well.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
This may be a little off topic and I'm asking out of curiosity what
others think. But I wonder if flow (and continuations in particular)
and cforms really is an appropriate technology for rich (and
potentially stateful) clients?
It's hard to say without having a
Le 25 nov. 04, à 08:18, Ralph Goers a écrit :
...Does this mean the list contains all past and present committers?
AFAIK yes, did you spot people missing from the list?
-Bertrand
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Ralph Goers a écrit :
...Does this mean the list contains all past and present committers?
AFAIK yes, did you spot people missing from the list?
-Bertrand
There is another page at http://cocoon.apache.org/2.1/who.html
Go ahead, add yourself to both.
--David
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 25 nov. 04, à 08:18, Ralph Goers a écrit :
...Does this mean the list contains all past and present committers?
AFAIK yes, did you spot people missing from the list?
-Bertrand
Well, yes. Leszek Gawron and myself. This was expected since we were
both added in the
Ralph Goers wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 25 nov. 04, à 08:18, Ralph Goers a écrit :
...Does this mean the list contains all past and present committers?
AFAIK yes, did you spot people missing from the list?
-Bertrand
Well, yes. Leszek Gawron and myself. This was expected since we were
51 matches
Mail list logo
