> 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@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@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@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
>
>