Return-Path: 
 <cocoon-dev-return-31629-apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 10261 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2002 11:13:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 10245 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 11:13:27 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@dff.st>
Organization: dff internet & medien
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: defaulting to a matcher when another one is not present
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:15:34 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1
References: <GMEBIBHGAOFGJCDPJANDIEKNFGAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
In-Reply-To: <GMEBIBHGAOFGJCDPJANDIEKNFGAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200210071315.34509.tcurdt@dff.st>
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

<snip/>

> > >2) I think it is more natural if a sub sitemap is invoked that it is
> > >   the sole responsibility of this sub sitemap to process the reques=
t.
> >
> > That's true if you consider each subsitemap to be a fully autonomous
> > subapplication, but not if you consider the top-level sitemap to be a
> > sort of container providing global services to subsitemaps.
> >
> > Considering also that a parent sitemap already provides components to
> > subsitemaps, this doesn't seem so unnatural. Some people also asked
> > views to be inherited by subsitemaps, which also goes in this directi=
on.
>
> No, I don't agree here. Yes, components are inherited and yes views sho=
uld
> imho also be inherited, but this is a one-way-street. The main sub site=
map
> gives control to the sub sitemap. You can't use components declared in
> the sub-sitemap in the main sitemap etc.

=2E..

> And sorry, I really think that this idea comes near to FS - but what
> do others think about this?

This reminds me on the cocoon get-together at the cebit where someone wan=
ted=20
components _not_ to be inherited.

I have to admit that I stumbled over the same question as Ovidiu did late=
ly.

What happens (or should happen) if you have an unmatched uri that's withi=
n the=20
scope of a subsitemap. If the subsitemap is fully autonomous it should ha=
ndle=20
the error. But if not - shouldn't it be passed to the parent sitemap?=20
Otherwise I would have to define the error handling in each subsitemap.
This doesn't sound like FS to me. In fact it could reduce redundancy a lo=
t...

Well, I do think we need at least some clearer definitions here. (Do we h=
ave=20
anything explicitly stated in the docs yet?)
--
Torsten

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