cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: Defining Source Interfaces
Date Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:46:59 GMT


> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> >>MHO: It all depends on what a Source is.
> >>
> >>1 - If a source is a plug to a URI-based source handler, it should have
> >>children.
> >>2  -If it's a plug to a resource, it should not.
> >>
> >>Usually a source is (2), but since we bind the Source to a URI, (1)
> >>makes more sense. BTW, if (2) is true, specific Sources should probably
> >>not be the place anyway where to traverse a URI space, or else we are in
> >>case (1).
> >
> > So you tend to {1}, right?
>
> Your're German, right? Always trying to make a clean cut? ;-)
>
Ehm...yes...

> >
> > Sorry, you totally lost me..(what is IMNSHO?)
>
> InMyNotSoHumbleOpinion

Ah!

>
> > A source by itself has nothing to do with XML or sax events. A source
> > can still implement the XMLizable interface for sax streaming. We have
> > the Cocoon SourceResolver which has a toSAX() method for a Source
> > object.
> > This method checks for the XMLizable interface. If the source implements
> > it, it's used. If not, the XMLizer component from excalibur is used
> > which does a mime-type to sax conversion and is therefore pluggable.
> >
> > Is it that what you meant?
>
> Errr, the context is that, yes. My point is that a *Generator* should do
> the stream to sax conversion, not the source. This maintains cleaner SOC.
>
Ok, we can now argue if it's the generator or some other component, but
I totally agree that it'S not the source itself. And actually as explained
above it's the case today.

Carsten


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


Mime
View raw message