cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giacomo Pati <>
Subject [RT] Protocol based sources eliminates almost every generator [was Re: Showstoppers for 2.0 final was RE: [tale+rant] The 2.0 syndrome and [Vote]: Final Release Date]
Date Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:18:45 GMT
Quoting Gianugo Rabellino <>:

> >>Also, what about having a list of changes that are in 2.1 only and
> >>need/should be ported to the final release, run a vote against them
> (as
> >>it was done before beta) and decide about them?
> >>
> >>
> > As far as I can see, there should nothing more need a backport. We did
> so
> > already with most of the required features. I know, you will say now:
> And
> > what about the configurable SourceHandlers?
> > Well, I'm +0 on this.
> Gotcha :) Even if I'm basically +0 too: I have no intention to ask for a
> backport of the XML:DB stuff in 2.0, so my code (and my ego ;P) is not a
> concern. Actually I'm not even committing it because I want to keep 
> focus on the final release and after that start discussing about new
> stuff.
> However this can be seen as a small API change, so I'm wondering if it 
> could be the case to have it in place already in the release: I think 
> that the Source abstraction is a great feature, but without a 
> configuration it might be hard to implement any other protocol (my 
> future plans are to include LDAP and IMAP as Sources), so probably it 
> would be nice for end users to have such a possibility.

This is what I have figured lately when talking with Stefano the other week. If 
you look at how many Generators we have you end up with only two important 


All the other (DirectoryGenerator, RequestGenerator, ...) could be easily 
realized by using XSP. We have put all specific handling of various sources into 
the Source abstration. So each data source you'd like to access (file:, 
resource:, context:, cocoon:, ldap:, news:, imap:, pop:, xmldb:, etc.) could in 
fact be realized by a Source.


> But I also have to understand what's going to happen with the 
> integration in Avalon of the Source stuff: if things are going to change
> anyway (if the framework is moved under the Avalon umbrella and possibly
> changed) then there might be no question for this anymore.
> Ciao,
> -- 
> Gianugo
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, email:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message