cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Cocoon Emotional Landscapes
Date Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:01:15 GMT
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> > Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > >
> > > >  - the XSP language (eXtensible Server Pages)
> > > >  - the sitemap concept
> > > >  - the resource view concept
> > >
> > > My only gripe would be that Cocoon somehow invented these
> > > concepts. DataChannel invented XSP, the sitemap "concept" is built into
> > > Apache (via <Location> tags and options between those tags)
> >
> > The "cocoon sitemap" concept is that you compose the pipelines using
> > modules.
> >
> > For sure it takes from the Apache sitemap, but Apache sitemaps are based
> > on URI matching only, don't have module chaining, don't have the notion
> > of views, don't have a bunch of other things.
> 
> All of that is, I think, fairly debatable. Handlers can be chained
> (although filtering isn't built in, but you can store in the notes table
> to emulate filtering in Apache 1.x). And sure it could support views. It
> depends what your module does, and how it interprets configuration options
> you supply. If you like I can translate your example sitemap to an AxKit
> equivalent to show how this can work with Apache 1.x's current config
> system.

Please do.
 
> > And they are not compiled but interpreted.
> 
> Dubious. httpd.conf is read at startup time, and values sent to the
> respective modules, and the values stored in an apache table
> structure. htaccess files are slightly different, of course.

I'm sure you know the meaning of "compiling" something: httpd.conf is
*NOT* compiled into code, that's not dubious at all!
 
> > There is huge difference between Cocoon sitemaps and Apache conf file.
> 
> Like I said though, innovation, not invention.

well, I disagree, but I really don't care.
 
> > > and resource
> > > views are certainly available in other application servers (before Cocoon
> > > ever existed), MediaSurface comes to mind. Innovative, not inventive,
> > > IMHO.
> >
> > Like I wrote in the article, "resource views" are a specific flavor of
> > "resource variants" and resource variants are explicitly written in the
> > HTTP RFC so I'm sure others implemented ways to have "resource variants"
> > in their web technologies.
> >
> > But I think there is no web technology out there that provides the
> > concept of "resource view" as I designed it: a projection of a
> > multi-dimensional resource onto the requested hyperplane.
> >
> > The "resource variant" concept doesn't take into account
> > multi-dimensional separation of concerns nor considers the resource
> > multi-dimensional.
> >
> > It's a very different thing, even if I agree that all resource views are
> > resource variants.
> 
> OK, I think I can just about parse what you're trying to say there, even
> though most of it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. It seems to
> me to be saying that you have a way of configuring the same URI to produce
> different content by different means (and different modules), using
> different methods of detecting exactly what to produce (content
> negotiation). I don't see this as something Cocoon can really claim to
> have invented per-se. You could do the same stuff in AxKit too, and I
> don't follow Cocoon development (I pretty much just check in on [RT]
> stuff), so I'm certain other people must have thought of this too.
> 
> But I don't want to argue it - its about time we started developing
> technologies around these nearly 3+ year old specs!

:)
 
> > > Oh, and you should say 6 years, not 10, for when companies ignored the
> > > web. Companies didn't even have the possibility of using the web 10 years
> > > ago (its almost shocking to think it was all that recent...).
> >
> > Why not? it was there. The first implementation dates 1989.
> 
> It started off just being in Universities (anyone remember regularly
> checking wuarchive for new uploads?), back when there was more content on
> gopher. In October 1993 there were 200 known HTTP servers (cf
> http://www.w3.org/History.html). 1994 is when it really took off, IIRC. So
> I think 6 years is about right. Your history of the web may vary :-)

Oh, well, I saw my first web page in 1995 so my web history is different
from what you thought... but my point is this:  in 1990 there were just
a few sites that hosted an HTTP server. In 2000 there are just a few
sites that host an XML publishing framework.

This is where I see the parallel: Cocoon and friends are now what the
web was 10 years ago, only with much more hype attached due to the XML
label.

It will take another 4 years for XML to really take off and create the
critical mass to starting having semantic searching.

This is my estimation, but I might be wrong: honestly, I don't care if
it's 6 or 10 years, just that XML is hype and we must remove that to be
successful.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------



Mime
View raw message