Ugh this is painful. I'll checkout your stuff within the next few days. If the architecture looks good and does have significantly greater functionality I will merge my changes into your code.
I also fixed the included variable problem and the nested include problems. The conditional stuff was the only thing I thought I was missing. I'm curious: How could I have checked out an older version accidently? Wouldn't I have had to explicitly specify a date or tag or something? ... This is all quite depressing ... -Dan Paul Speed wrote: >Dan Sandberg wrote: > > >>Yes, let's merge them together. How do I get to the code that you >>fixed? Were the test cases in CVS? >> >> > >It's all in CVS. If you checkout the source code from some time in >December you should get it all back in util and util/ssi. It looks >like my last check-in was on November 29th or so. I too made some >pretty significant changes. It looks like my final test.xml >never made it in, but I'm attaching it here. (Only the SSI parts >are relevant of course.) All of the golden files look like they're >still there. > > > >>I'd say lets get all the test cases setup, and see where my code fails >>your tests. Then we can use your code wherever functionality is missing. >> >> >> > >The motivation for my original changes was to fix the nesting of >.shtml files (ie: a .shtml file including another .shtml file) and >to add support for set, variable substitution, conditionals, etc.. >When I looked at the original version and saw it was such a mess, I >did pertty much a complete rewrite. Some of my changes are similar >to yours, but I got rid of classes like SsiMediator and such. > >All of this included fixing how variables were kept for includes >and such, as well as parsing fixes and the addition of some new >commands. It's all pretty significant and may not naturally fit >some of your refactoring. > >To be honest, it might be easier to redo your changes against my >stuff than it would be to graft my stuff onto yours. Even though >I know that's probably a real pain in the a**. In it's current >state, I think the current fixed version has much less functionality >than the previous fixed version. Hopefully we can work something >out. > > > >>I thought I had checked out the head revision. Did I make a mistake >>with the cvs check out command? >> >> > >Must have. The fact that you even have an SsiMediator means you >were changing an older version. Unfortunately, Bill didn't notice >this when he committed your stuff and probably just whole-sale >nuked the older files. Don't feel too bad about that, though. >My original rewrite did something similar. Only in my case, it >was only a small bug fix that was reverted. Still a little >disconcerting from my point of view. Probably my own fault for >taking a two-month break from the lists. > >And I had no idea I could have parlayed those patches into committer >access. :) >-Paul > > > >>-Dan >> >>Paul Speed wrote: >> >> >> >>>(Resending from my older address in hopes that it will help avoid >>>some confusion.) >>> >>>Hmmm... >>> >>>This is what I get for ignoring the list for a while. ;) >>> >>>Note: I completely rewrote the SSI support in 4.x HEAD and had Bip >>>apply the patches (Amy also did some patching) for exactly the same >>>reasons you originally mention. I did this around Oct/Nov 2001. On >>>most of the 4.0 bug reports for SSI (which I agree was a bad >>>implementation on that branch) I commented that my changes should >>>probably have been back-ported from head. >>> >>>I even had test cases for all of the SSI commands, including the >>>conditionals which I added support for. >>> >>>My only guess is that you were looking at an older version when finding >>>the problem. My rewrite solved all of these problems and was >>>completely compatible with all mod_include commands except for the >>>regex stuff. >>> >>>Of course, now it seems that my version has been completely blown >>>away. Which is unfortunate since that means we lose conditionals... >>>and possibly some of the more esoteric nesting behavior that I copied >>> >>> >>>from Apache (I haven't tested this yet.) >> >> >>>It's too bad that SSI on head was blown away for changes to an older >>>version. Any chance we can nicely merge the two good versions into >>>one more good version? >>> >>>-Paul Speed >>> >>>Dan Sandberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi everyone. >>>> >>>>Here are more changes to the SSI code. >>>> >>>>I have a test case ( comparing SSI behavior to Apache by using .shtml >>>>files in different tomcat webapps / apache directories ) which I have >>>>not included because I'm not sure where to put manual test cases like >>>>this. If there is an apprioriate place for these kinds of things, >>>>please let me know. >>>> >>>>I also have not yet updated package.html in the o.a.c.ssi directory. I >>>>will do this when I come back from a weekend trip. >>>> >>>>Here are the instructions for installing the new code, using the >>>>jakarta-tomcat-4.0 dir as the base dir. >>>> >>>>delete files in ( and dir ) : >>>>catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/util/ssi >>>>delete file: >>>>catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/servlets/SsiInvokerServlet.java >>>>unjar the jar >>>>-this puts SSIServlet.java into >>>>catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/servlets >>>>-this puts the rest of the files in >>>>catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/ssi >>>> >>>>Since the name of the SSI servlet class changes, and since I added some >>>>notes to it, patch web.xml according to the included patch. >>>> >>>>Since I'm planning on maintaining this for a while, commit access might >>>>be a good idea, as it makes things easier for everyone. >>>> >>>>Thanks & have a great weekend! >>>> >>>>-Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
