I can look into the preaty printer a bit ... tried to keep it close,
so probably
there are some bugs here.
Cool, I think it's mostly the indenting, it just looks kinda lame with
it all in one big line. One thing though, we've got too much
duplication going on, with my comments in UserBasic, the comments
generated by the XMLConfigWriter (I know, my fault since I don't update
them), and the help labels in the web app (found in
ApplicationResources.properties), which are essentially the same thing.
I think the thing to do is to use the ApplicationResources as comments
in the XMLConfigWriter, and then to have me update those and do a new
generate for whenever I want to update a comment on userBasic. Does
that work for everyone? After you update the pretty printing David
then I can then tweak the config writer and the comments to look how
I'd like them to.
Chris
Quoting cholmes@anonymised.com:
> > So I have been given some new default configuration data to stick
into
> > GeoServer and I have done so.. a set of six shape files added to
the
> > UserBasic configuration.
> Uh. Ok, I guess that's fine. Perhaps an explanation on why we feel
> these are needed in the default configuration? I'm sort of inclined
to
> keep it small, so users have a good idea what's going on without
having
> to wade through a bunch of junk. And so they don't have to remove a
> bunch of files to put just their own data in. Though I don't feel
> incredibly strongly, but putting more data in the UserBasic
> configuration does mean are war is bigger, and I sorta like that
being
> small, I just did some clean up to get its size down more.
>
> Actually, I meant to bring something up on the size issue. How
> necessary is our dependance on xercesImpl? As far as I could tell
our
> XML configuration writer uses some Output classes. Is there another
> way to do this, or do we need xerces? I guess that could be another
> argument for the avalon stuff (though it may rely on xerces as
well).
> I think everything else that xerces does can be done by whatever the
> servlet container is using for xml stuff.
>
> > I have left the shapefiles as I have given
> > them, all in one directory, with the feature type's xml files in
their
> > own directory as GeoServer has generated them.
> Hrm, I'm not sure about this, as we recommend to users they put them
in
> their own folder. Though for shapefiles it really would be nice if
a
> datastore could be a directory. I would not be nearly so anal about
> this stuff if it wasn't in UserBasic, because UserBasic is what goes
> out to all of our users, so it really should look good and make
perfect
> sense. And having a geoserverdemo folder in their main conf/ folder
> makes it seem like its a standard folder, when it's really not.
>
> You could make a confGeoServerDemo, like confCitePostGis and
> confUserBasic, and I won't be so anal. Though I feel that too is
> slightly weird, having the demo in the source code. But if that's
what
> you'd like, go for it, I don't feel too strongly.
>
> >
> > Also note that the catalog.xml and services.xml that it uses now
(that
> > GeoServer generated for me) are quite ugly.
>
> Yeah, that's unacceptable. Sorry. You're going to have to not use
the
> generated GeoServer ones. Just bring up the old ones and cut and
paste
> the new lines in from the generated ones. It's really important
that
> those files look nice, as they are the entry point for users who are
> not interested in the web interface, and they will stay unmangled as
> long as you don't use the web interface.
>
>
> Chris
----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: https://webmail.limegroup.com/