Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3DAE6B4F.1030108@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:48:31 +0200
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Source vs. Generator
References: <GMEBIBHGAOFGJCDPJANDMECEEMAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
 <3DADBE56.6090506@cbim.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Ugo Cei wrote:
> A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
>> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
>> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
>> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I think a 
>> protocol makes sense if several, different sources
>> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
>> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
>> several files from the FTP server.
>> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
>> information, the request.
> 
> 
> After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might 
> justify the implementation of a RequestSource.
> 
> Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is 
> allowed to paste an HTML (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is using 
> some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of invalid HTML, like the MS 
> rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
> 
> Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to 
> well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom action 
> or XSP page or custom generator. But wouldn't it be much easier to just 
> write something like:
> 
> <map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
> 
> ?
> 
> Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't 
> one, if I wrote this kind of Source, would it be useful to someone else 
> beside me?

A Source is a way of obtaining a piece of information.
A Generator is a way of converting it to XML.

Since all Generators need to obtain a piece of information first, it's 
only logical that every Generator should work from data gotten from a 
Source.

Sometimes it won't be practical, but conceptually it stands, and it adds 
a great deal of flexibility.

As for the Request, we are used to it being an Object per se, but it's 
really an Object *holder*, a reference.
So it's a way of obtaining Objects, not only an Object itself, so it 
should be repackaged as a Source.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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