cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ricardo Rocha <>
Subject Re: taglibs (was: XObject)
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:48:58 GMT
Torsten Curdt wrote:

>> The current XSP implementation allows for the inclusion of
>> "not-builtin" libraries by means of _top-level_ <xsp:logicsheet>
>> directives or root-level <?xml-logicsheet?> pi's.
> Some more questions:
> Which syntax should be preferred <xsp:logicsheet> or the PI?

Personally, I dislike the PI form. It's there only because
of a (vain?) attempt to provide "backwards compatibility"
with C1.

I also dislike <xsp:logicsheet> (as I've come to dislike
a number of things about the current C2 XSP implementation,
but I'd like to elaborate on this later).

For one, logicsheets are not part of the core XSP (i.e. code
generation) tagset. I feel they should belong to a separate
namespace designed to represent logicsheet-specific actions
(e.g. <sll:logicsheet>)

This may sound a bit extreme, but I'd rather return to the old
days when namespaces were the _only_ mechanism for associating
logicsheets with XSP's.

Btw, the reason why the <?xml-logicsheet?> pi was introduced
was to provide a way of associating logicsheets without the
need to restart the servlet engine (so that Cocoon reloaded
its configuration file containing the namespace-to-logicsheet
mappings). Now that we have an auto-reloading sitemap, this
shouldn't be a problem...

In all truth, another reason to introduce <?xml-logicsheet?>
was to make it possible to write logichsheets that were not
tied to a namespace.

I think it's a good idea to re-enforce this association (i.e.
namespace uri and logicsheet)

What do you guys think?


View raw message