Colin Britton wrote:
>> i reckon, after careful consideration, that (3) is probably the best
>> solution, but (2) still has a lot to recommend it. i think they have the
>> practically the same effect on the cache engine since both can report with
>> precision which request-time parameters are relevant to their
>> cacheability. what do y'all think?
>>
>
> I don't have a vote but since I started this whole thread I guess my input
> might count for something ;-)
>
> I think (3) or (2) will get me where I want to go, *but* since I believe
> they both have the same issues for the cache engine I prefer using (2) the
> params method of the stylesheet. With the support for default params in most
> of the XSLT editors (Like eXcelon Stylus) this fits into a broader use
> pattern in the XSL community, I have now also seen a number of other XSLT
> examples use this method (not that this is ever a great reason to do
> something).
(I don't have a vote, just commenting)
The (2) solution has a very appealing concept: it is 100% compatible
with the "pull" approach used in Turbine for templating. This means that
some (bean-like) objects are "pulled" into the template-writer workspace
and then the template writer is able to use them at will in templates.
The syntax under velocity would be like $request.headers.accept, quite
similar to what you are doing here ($request/headers/accept).
This will allows for a smooth transition between other templating
solutions and C2 (just expose the "toolbox objects" as DOM, and pass
them down the pipeline). The language impedance mismatch would be minimized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
|