cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: AW: [RT]: Session support
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:42:58 GMT
Bernhard Huber wrote:
> 
> Hi
> > I still believe that serializers are somewhat special components and
> > should not have a side entry for data.... also because I believe that
> > serializers should be removed from pipeline definitions... but this is
> > another story.
> >
> That would be great, as the request contains user-agent, and
> the accepts http-header it should be possible to select
> the correct serializer.
> That way the serializer could be removed from the pipline defintion
> completly.
> Did I get it right?

Well, I was thinking about internal content aggregation: since
aggregation is going to be a major feature of Cocoon, I think that
serializers should be added to adapt a pipeline to the external world,
thus have a different semantic than today.

So that doing something like this

 [g -> t -> t] -> S

where [...] is the pipeline allows you to do aggregation without the
double serialization/deserialization (parsing) stages as we do today.

Moreoever, it eases the concept of views since you can do

 [g -(a)-> t1 -(b)-> t2 -(c)-> t3] -> S

then the 'c' view of that URI 

 [c] -> [t -> S]  

is translated into

 [g -> t1 -> t2 -> t] -> S

and one could even aggregate different views without worring about
serialization getting into its way.

But this will requires some changes into the internal API since the
cocoon:// protocol returns a byte stream not a SAX stream.

So, lots of things to consider.

Stefano.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message