Is the functionality equivalent? ie I can just change all my "cinclude" tags to "include" and things will work as before?
>>> On 2008/05/20 at 04:02, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeroen Reijn >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Derek, the IncludeTransformer has been favored over the CincludeTransformer for a long time as far as I know. Regards, Jeroen Derek Hohls wrote: > I am obviously not reading carefully enough... > cinclude is deprecated? what is meant to be its replacement?? > > Thanks > Derek > > >>> On 2008/05/20 at 12:23, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Kamal Bhatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reinhard Haller wrote: > I had a rant about this about a month back. Basically, Cocoon > documentation is now a mess. > ... > Last I looked, most of the functionality was ported across. A lot of > things have been deprecated (cinclude, XSP, etc...), so be aware of > this. If you want information about migration options, I recommend > looking at my various posts last month on Cocoon 2.2 migration. Grzegorz > and others discussed all the various migration options. > > FYI, we have held off on migrating to Cocoon 2.2, but that is not > because of Cocoon 2.2s functionality. As frustrating as certain aspects > of Cocoon 2.2 can be (confusing documentation being top of the list), I > would recommend upgrading to Cocoon 2.2 if only for a saner development > environment. -- This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for their support. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
