cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ovidiu Predescu <>
Subject Re: Interpreted sitemap
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:53:05 GMT
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:35:05 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <> wrote:

> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> > The two models are more like a "pull" model in the Avalon case, as
> > opposed to a "push" model in the Ant case.
> > 
> > Personally I prefer the push model (the Ant way), as it's much easier
> > to write and maintain over a longer period of time. The code that
> > deals with the loading and instantiation of the right classes is
> > centralized, thus you have to write it once and for all only in the
> > engine.
> For ant it makes perfect sense to have such a way of configuring things
> (i.e. fully inerted, a-la javabeans). But for more general frameworks, I
> disagree since, just like for beans, this forces you to have flat
> configuration files or very complex data2method mapping schemes.

I don't think you're forced to use a flat configuration file. Again
the Ant engine builds a hierarchy of Java objects that mimics exactly
the XML document which is parsed. It does this by using not only
set<Attribute>() methods, but also add<Element>() methods. The later
are used to have instance variable point to arbitrary objects, not
only simple data types. For more information on this, please go to:

I think the model applies to a generic framework as well. It's also a
very simple thing to understand, and easy to maintain.

Ovidiu Predescu <> (inside HP's firewall only) (my SourceForge page) (GNU, Emacs, other stuff)

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

View raw message