cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Ball <>
Subject Re: playing with cocoon2
Date Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:37:16 GMT
On 25 Jun 2000, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:

> Donald Ball <> writes:
> > 2. add some sort of directive to the sitemap that says read the resource
> > and spew the bytes out -
> > 
> > <process uri="photomontage/*.jpg" src="photomontage/*.jpg">
> >  <pass-through type="binary"/>
> > </process>
> I think this is one of the cases where the Tomcat User's Guide
> recommends using a "real" web server (see section "Setting Tomcat to
> Cooperate with the Apache Web Server"). So perhaps you should consider
> that option.

sure, absolutely, but if my objects are available through two different

/cocoon/photomontage/ for cocoon-processed
/static/photomontage/ for non-cocoon-processed

writing the links to the static images in my stylesheet is going to be a
pain in the ass.

on the other hand, this pass-through or read function suggested for the
sitemap also sucks since then we're going to be responsible for setting
the mime type ourselves - apache has a nice set of modules for doing that,
it would seem to be much saner to have apache do it, right?

so i ask again, why would this not be desirable:

<process uri="/cocoon/(photomontage/*.jpg)">
 <redirect type="external" uri="/static/$1"/>

which would end up issuing a request.sendRedirect("/static/photomontage/1.jpg")
method call. sure, you end up with an extra http call, but that's pretty
cheap nowadays what with keepalives and all.

> I have to admit, though, that this approach requires a even more
> distributed software configuration (for Apache, Tomcat and Cocoon)
> with lots of redundancies and logically similar options spread all
> over more than 3 config files.

you said it. there's nothing worse than maintaining redundant information.

- donald

View raw message