Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Giacomo Pati wrote:
In Reinhards document it is META-INF/block.xml on the Wiki it's
COB-INF/block.xml. So we need to make a decision:-)
Please use META-INF/block.xml, AFAIK we agreed on making our blocks
valid JAR files.
Any zip file with jar extension and /META-INF/MANIFEST.MF entry is valid jar
file. Presence of COB-INF can not make jar file invalid.
The skeleton in my tutorial should be compiled and
packaged to an archive having following content:
/JAR-FILE-ROOT
+-com
| +-mycompany
| +-blocks
| +-myblock
| +-MyCocoonAction.class
+-META-INF
| +-block.xml
| +-com
| +-mycompany
| +-blocks
| +-myblock
| +-pom.xml
+-cocoon-app
+-sitemap.xmap
+-test.xml
Please move block resource files (xmap, xml, etc) into COCOON-INF, or COB-INF,
or some such directory, so that:
a) It is more prominent that these files are not part of
'cocoon-app' Java package
b) It is more consistent with other J2EE jars (APP-INF, WEB-INF)
c) Naming conflict (when user has cocoon-app package) is impossible
d) Class loader can be configured to filter out our FOO-INF directory
If we follow the default Maven directory structure as outlined in my
tutorial, the archive will be created automatically for us.
Now to answer your question ;) the position of the .xconf of a block
is defined in the components element of block.xml.
Ok, looking at [1] it is defined in the block.xconf file, which is
located in COB-INF (or WEB-INF or META-INF respectively). Is that
still correct?
I'm not sure where block.xconf should go to. I'd put it under cocoon-app
and not under META-INF. WDOT?
META-INF is fine, I think.
Vadim
