Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 49766 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2002 03:46:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 49754 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 03:46:08 -0000 Message-ID: <3D251679.2070605@apache.org> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:46:01 -0400 From: "Andrew C. Oliver" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: Having all the sitemaps in one directory References: <3D248B5B.6CF38013@apache.org> <33550.63.122.75.10.1025827632.squirrel@oasyx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Agreed... I like the mountable sitemaps concept.. Andy Lewis wrote: >Uh...please don't do this.... > >I'm with Stefano - keep it relocatable. Putting them all together will dramatically change the way >coocon must be set up and managed. >For example - on the NASA Kennedy Space Center portal I'm syndicating a sitemap with each ICE >package (representing a channel, content area, portlet, or whatever term you like), and then >automounting them on the subscribing server. As it stands now, this works out great. This gives me >huge flexibility on what I can syndicate (database apps using the SQLTransformer, JSPs even), and >makes distribution very simple. > > > > > >>Piroumian Konstantin wrote: >> >> >>>Hi colleagues! >>> >>>An idea just came to me: what if all the sitemap files where located under the WEB-INF >>>directory and be mounted from the one that is called 'sitemap' (or configured on xconf)? So, >>>there can be: >>> sitemap.xmap - the root sitemap >>> samples.xmap - samples sub-sitemap >>> docs.xmap - documentation sub-sitemap >>> >>>This can serve for two purposes: better security (it's said that WEB-INF is the most secure >>>place in webapp context) and better managebility. >>> >>>E.g. for Forrest I definitely see a need for sub-sitemaps, otherwise we will end up with a >>>huge and messy sitemap, but as Forrest should pull documentation from multiple projects (from >>>CVS) which does not contain any sitemaps, so we are stuck to a single sitemap. >>> >>>What do you think? Is it possible now? This should be as simple as using another name (not >>>'sitemap') for the subsitemap and specify the needed 'src' in map:mount. Am I right? >>> >>> >>-1 >> >>The fact that sitemaps are 'relocatable' allows people to give different access control to >>different parts of the URI space. Placing them all in one directory forces more overlap between >>the various sitemap managers of the variuos places of the URI space >> >>NOTE: nothing stops you from moving all your sitemaps in one location *NOW*, but I don't want >>to force people to do it. >> >>-- >>Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be >> able to give birth to a dancing star. >> Friedrich Nietzsche >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org >>For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org