cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Oliver" <coli...@SeeBeyond.com>
Subject RE: Polishing the flow contracts
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:50:12 GMT
Yes it's quite odd. And to me it sounds like a bigger hack than passing an OutputStream. Source
has a getInputStream() and represents a "source of data" according to its documentation. It
doesn't even have getOutputStream().

Regards,

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:pier@betaversion.org]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:40 AM
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Polishing the flow contracts


"Upayavira" <uv@upaya.co.uk> wrote:

>>   var source = cocoon.componentManager.get(
>>      Packages.org.apache.excalibur.source.WriteableSource.ROLE +
>>      "/file
>>   );
>>   source.setDest("whatever");
>>   cocoon.process("whatever",source);
> 
> FWIW, that fits nicely with what I'm thinking of doing on the CLI. I plan to
> make it 
> write to sources rather than files, and a cocoon.process("some-uri", source)
> would 
> work well.
> 
> More on my ideas soon.
> 
> On the subject of the flow, presumably you could expose the source resolver,
> so that 
> you could write the above with something like:
> 
> cocoon.process("whatever", resolver.getSource("file://blah"));

It's quite odd to "write" to a "source", but well, better than using
LiveConnect.

Thinking out loud... Should the "resolver" then be another read-only
attribute of the script (instead of passing through the component manager?)

    Pier


Mime
View raw message