cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Haul <h...@dvs1.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Subject Re: Chaining order (Re: [VOTE] Input module chaining)
Date Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:38:25 GMT
On 08.Oct.2002 -- 10:34 PM, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:54:47AM +0200, Christian Haul wrote:
> > On 08.Oct.2002 -- 01:34 PM, Piroumian Konstantin wrote:
> ...
> > > > > I imagine this a little different, e.g.:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  <component-instance 
> > > > > class="org.apache.cocoon.components.modules.input.SkinModule"
> > > > >          logger="core.modules.input" name="skin">
> > > > >    <input-module name="request-param"/>
> > > > >    <input-module name="skin-defaults"/>
> > > > >  </component-instance>
> > > > 
> > > > Oo.. that's a good idea. Say we've got all these modules 
> > > > floating about loose, and then we have a 'glue' module that 
> > > > can stick together a bunch of them.
> > > 
> > > Exactly this I've been trying to say all this time. Seems that it's time to
> > > went to some English courses ;)
> > 
> > May I add myself to this list ;-)
> > 
> > Only that in my imagination this would be called
> > e.g. "ChainingMetaModule" and the user would call this particular
> > instance "skin"
> 
> Yes.
> 
> So to elaborate on Konstantin's example above, would we split
> DefaultMetaModule into a DefaultsModule and ChainingMetaModule? Eg, go
> from:
> 
> <component-instance class="...DefaultsMetaModule" name="defaults">
>   <input-module name="request-param"/>
>   <values>
>     <skin>defaultSkin</skin>
>     <base-url>http://localhost:8080/cocoon</base-url>
>   </values>
> </component-instance>
> 
> to:
> 
> <component-instance class="...DefaultsModule" name="defaults">
>   <values>
>     <skin>defaultSkin</skin>
>     <base-url>http://localhost:8080/cocoon</base-url>
>   </values>
> </component-instance>
> 
> <component-instance class="...ChainingMetaModule" name="skin">
>   <input-module name="request-param"/>
>   <input-module name="defaults"/>
> </component-instance>

Yes!!

> I think that's really great :) It nicely separates the two concerns. It's
> dead simple in concept and implementation. It's (AFAICT) powerful enough
> to meet all use-cases. Best of all, module implementors (XMLModule in my
> case) don't need to worry about chaining. Eg, for Forrest we can have:
> 
> <component-instance class="...ChainingMetaModule" name="skin">
>   <input-module name="request-param"/>
>   <input-module name="forrestconf"/>
>   <input-module name="defaults"/>
> </component-instance>
> 
> <component-instance class="...XMLModule" name="forrestconf">
>   <config>resource:///forrestconf.xml</config>
> </component-instance>
> 
> 
> Any downsides?
> 
> Big +1

+1 (of course :-)

	Chris.
-- 
C h r i s t i a n       H a u l
haul@informatik.tu-darmstadt.de
    fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837  7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08

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


Mime
View raw message