RESTXQ declare base-uri ".";

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri are > resolved differently [1]. If I have > > -webapp > --folder1 > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at 'mod2.xqm';) > ---mod2.xqm > The import works. If I add > declare base-uri "."; > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq and it > works. > Is this intended behavior? > /Andy > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl

On 16 June 2014 14:14, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I agree that relative base-uri declarations should always refer to the > location of the current query file, no matter in which context. This > should be fixed in the latest snapshot [1]. > > Thanks, > Christian > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri are > > resolved differently [1]. If I have > > > > -webapp > > --folder1 > > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at 'mod2.xqm';) > > ---mod2.xqm > > The import works. If I add > > declare base-uri "."; > > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq and it > > works. > > Is this intended behavior? > > /Andy > > > > [1] > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl >

> My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax".

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, I will give it a go. > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". I am > thinking of trying setting RESTXQPATH to restxq. > Then using this structure: > webapp > -app1 > --mod2.xqm > > -restxq > --app1 > ---restmod1.xqm > > -static > --app1 > ---index.html > > Where restxq/app/restmod1.xqm etc all have declare base-uri "../../app"; > > Unless there is another imminent solution to this in the works :-)? > > /Andy > > > On 16 June 2014 14:14, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> I agree that relative base-uri declarations should always refer to the >> location of the current query file, no matter in which context. This >> should be fixed in the latest snapshot [1]. >> >> Thanks, >> Christian >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri are >> > resolved differently [1]. If I have >> > >> > -webapp >> > --folder1 >> > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at 'mod2.xqm';) >> > ---mod2.xqm >> > The import works. If I add >> > declare base-uri "."; >> > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq and it >> > works. >> > Is this intended behavior? >> > /Andy >> > >> > [1] >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl > >

>Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the repository?

On 16 June 2014 16:07, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: > > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". > > Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the > repository? That's what we usually do. > > Pre-compilation will fix various of the problems, too (but this is > still on our list, and non-trivial..). > > Christian > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks, I will give it a go. > > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". > I am > > thinking of trying setting RESTXQPATH to restxq. > > Then using this structure: > > webapp > > -app1 > > --mod2.xqm > > > > -restxq > > --app1 > > ---restmod1.xqm > > > > -static > > --app1 > > ---index.html > > > > Where restxq/app/restmod1.xqm etc all have declare base-uri "../../app"; > > > > Unless there is another imminent solution to this in the works :-)? > > > > /Andy > > > > > > On 16 June 2014 14:14, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Andy, > >> > >> I agree that relative base-uri declarations should always refer to the > >> location of the current query file, no matter in which context. This > >> should be fixed in the latest snapshot [1]. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Christian > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri are > >> > resolved differently [1]. If I have > >> > > >> > -webapp > >> > --folder1 > >> > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at > 'mod2.xqm';) > >> > ---mod2.xqm > >> > The import works. If I add > >> > declare base-uri "."; > >> > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq and it > >> > works. > >> > Is this intended behavior? > >> > /Andy > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl > > > > >

On 16 June 2014 16:21, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > >Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the repository? > I am sure that works but it does not seem the right use of the repository to > me, particularly if those modules start to reference other non xqm files. > > /Andy > > > On 16 June 2014 16:07, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". >> >> Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the >> repository? That's what we usually do. >> >> Pre-compilation will fix various of the problems, too (but this is >> still on our list, and non-trivial..). >> >> Christian >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thanks, I will give it a go. >> > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". >> I am >> > thinking of trying setting RESTXQPATH to restxq. >> > Then using this structure: >> > webapp >> > -app1 >> > --mod2.xqm >> > >> > -restxq >> > --app1 >> > ---restmod1.xqm >> > >> > -static >> > --app1 >> > ---index.html >> > >> > Where restxq/app/restmod1.xqm etc all have declare base-uri "../../app"; >> > >> > Unless there is another imminent solution to this in the works :-)? >> > >> > /Andy >> > >> > >> > On 16 June 2014 14:14, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> >> >> I agree that relative base-uri declarations should always refer to the >> >> location of the current query file, no matter in which context. This >> >> should be fixed in the latest snapshot [1]. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Christian >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri are >> >> > resolved differently [1]. If I have >> >> > >> >> > -webapp >> >> > --folder1 >> >> > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at >> 'mod2.xqm';) >> >> > ---mod2.xqm >> >> > The import works. If I add >> >> > declare base-uri "."; >> >> > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq and >> it >> >> > works. >> >> > Is this intended behavior? >> >> > /Andy >> >> > >> >> > [1] >> >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl >> > >> > >> > >

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > I hesitate to suggest this given the recent thread about xquery file > extensions :-), but an alternative solution to this might be to expose the > extensions used for by restxq scan as a config option. I guess this > currently is *.xqm *.xq. If I could set this to, for example, *.xqa, for > "xquery active" or "xquery annotated", then the problem would go away. > > /Andy > > > > > On 16 June 2014 16:21, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the repository? >> I am sure that works but it does not seem the right use of the repository >> to me, particularly if those modules start to reference other non xqm files. >> >> /Andy >> >> >> On 16 June 2014 16:07, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". >>> >>> Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the >>> repository? That's what we usually do. >>> >>> Pre-compilation will fix various of the problems, too (but this is >>> still on our list, and non-trivial..). >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Thanks, I will give it a go. >>> > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing tax". >>> > I am >>> > thinking of trying setting RESTXQPATH to restxq. >>> > Then using this structure: >>> > webapp >>> > -app1 >>> > --mod2.xqm >>> > >>> > -restxq >>> > --app1 >>> > ---restmod1.xqm >>> > >>> > -static >>> > --app1 >>> > ---index.html >>> > >>> > Where restxq/app/restmod1.xqm etc all have declare base-uri >>> > "../../app"; >>> > >>> > Unless there is another imminent solution to this in the works :-)? >>> > >>> > /Andy >>> > >>> > >>> > On 16 June 2014 14:14, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Andy, >>> >> >>> >> I agree that relative base-uri declarations should always refer to the >>> >> location of the current query file, no matter in which context. This >>> >> should be fixed in the latest snapshot [1]. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Christian >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri are >>> >> > resolved differently [1]. If I have >>> >> > >>> >> > -webapp >>> >> > --folder1 >>> >> > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at >>> >> > 'mod2.xqm';) >>> >> > ---mod2.xqm >>> >> > The import works. If I add >>> >> > declare base-uri "."; >>> >> > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq and >>> >> > it >>> >> > works. >>> >> > Is this intended behavior? >>> >> > /Andy >>> >> > >>> >> > [1] >>> >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl >>> > >>> > >> >> >

On 16 June 2014 23:19, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> wrote: > ;) What about adding a .tmp extension to temporarily inactive files? > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > > I hesitate to suggest this given the recent thread about xquery file > > extensions :-), but an alternative solution to this might be to expose > the > > extensions used for by restxq scan as a config option. I guess this > > currently is *.xqm *.xq. If I could set this to, for example, *.xqa, for > > "xquery active" or "xquery annotated", then the problem would go away. > > > > /Andy > > > > > > > > > > On 16 June 2014 16:21, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the repository? > >> I am sure that works but it does not seem the right use of the > repository > >> to me, particularly if those modules start to reference other non xqm > files. > >> > >> /Andy > >> > >> > >> On 16 June 2014 16:07, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing > tax". > >>> > >>> Did you already try to move all non-restxq modules into the > >>> repository? That's what we usually do. > >>> > >>> Pre-compilation will fix various of the problems, too (but this is > >>> still on our list, and non-trivial..). > >>> > >>> Christian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > Thanks, I will give it a go. > >>> > My motivation is to find a restxq config that avoids the "parsing > tax". > >>> > I am > >>> > thinking of trying setting RESTXQPATH to restxq. > >>> > Then using this structure: > >>> > webapp > >>> > -app1 > >>> > --mod2.xqm > >>> > > >>> > -restxq > >>> > --app1 > >>> > ---restmod1.xqm > >>> > > >>> > -static > >>> > --app1 > >>> > ---index.html > >>> > > >>> > Where restxq/app/restmod1.xqm etc all have declare base-uri > >>> > "../../app"; > >>> > > >>> > Unless there is another imminent solution to this in the works :-)? > >>> > > >>> > /Andy > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 16 June 2014 14:14, Christian Grün <christian.gruen at gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hi Andy, > >>> >> > >>> >> I agree that relative base-uri declarations should always refer to > the > >>> >> location of the current query file, no matter in which context. This > >>> >> should be fixed in the latest snapshot [1]. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks, > >>> >> Christian > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Andy Bunce <bunce.andy at gmail.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > Hi, > >>> >> > It seems that in restxq mode relative paths for declare base-uri > are > >>> >> > resolved differently [1]. If I have > >>> >> > > >>> >> > -webapp > >>> >> > --folder1 > >>> >> > ---mod1.xqm (which has import module namespace xm='test' at > >>> >> > 'mod2.xqm';) > >>> >> > ---mod2.xqm > >>> >> > The import works. If I add > >>> >> > declare base-uri "."; > >>> >> > to mod1. the import fails, running the same code not via restxq > and > >>> >> > it > >>> >> > works. > >>> >> > Is this intended behavior? > >>> >> > /Andy > >>> >> > > >>> >> > [1] > >>> >> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-xquery-30-20140408/#id-base-uri-decl > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >