cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <>
Subject processing flow for <map:call resource=""/> (was: <map:serialize type="{1}"/>)
Date Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:12:07 GMT
(Moving this discussion to dev list because it implies an more or less 
important change - wanted or not.)

The problem: Does the processing return to a calling pipeline after 
<map:call resource=""/>?

The docu at 
and says no (to 
whatever reasons). But I saw Marc's example at 
and he tested it again and it worked, i.e. the processing flow *does* 
return to the calling pipeline.

Is this change implied? What were the pros and contras of this 
behaviour? I only know the old behaviour and, yes, the return makes the 
sitemap pipeline snippets more flexible. And who updates the docu ;-)

Can anybody say something about it?


Marc Portier wrote:

>>>> Hmm, much of the code on this page is wrong or at least misleading:
>>>> <map:resource name="generate-data-xml">
>>>>   <map:generate type="myCSVGenerator" 
>>>> src="http://csv-server.domain/getData"/>
>>>> </map:resource>
>>>> <map:resource name="generate-data-svg">
>>>>   <map:call resource="generate-data-xml"/>
>>>>   <map:transform src="xsl/datafilter.xsl"/>
>>>>   <map:transform src="xsl/data2svg.xsl"/>
>>>> </map:resource>
>>>> A <map:call resource=""/> is a one way ticket. The processing does

>>>> not return to the calling pipeline. Or do I miss anything?
>>> I think it does... (at least it did at the time of writing since I 
>>> tested the code out)
>>> resources are pieces of pipelines that take up roles
>>> see also the accompanied page at
>> If that's true it must be more a bug than a feature I guess: 
> It is true.
> Just did a simple test (using cvs head) by wrapping a generator inside a 
> resource and replacing the <map:generate by the fresh map:call/@resource 
> in a particular pipe (followed by transformers  and serializer of course)
> as for the documentation:
> I've spent some time to figure out if the wording 'calls to a resource 
> never return' could be interpreted in any other way but I'ld have to 
> concede that the doco is not in sync with code reality here...
> Maybe the docos are still reflecting how the previous sitemap 
> implementation was handling things? Anyone out there aware of the 
> history of things? (I never tested this with anything else then the 
> treeprocessor)
> In any case I think this behavior is generaly useful (as the wiki page 
> tries to argument) and not harmful in any way...
> regards,
> -marc=

View raw message