Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 22550 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2003 10:48:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 22418 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2003 10:48:46 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Jul 2003 10:48:46 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 50A9ABAB93 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 02CF7BAB12 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0393 ([10.10.2.73]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with SMTP id 2003071812483178:12047 ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:48:31 +0200 Message-ID: <049701c34d1a$37818770$49020a0a@hw0393> From: "Guido Casper" To: References: <02a401c34d0b$338be110$49020a0a@hw0393> <3F17CBDB.2070104@apache.org> <3F17CED9.8070401@apache.org> Subject: Re: Improving (?) the RequestGenerator Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:49:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 18.07.2003 12:48:32, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 18.07.2003 12:48:33, Serialize complete at 18.07.2003 12:48:33 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > Gianugo Rabellino wrote: >>> I already submitted a patch to bugzilla. >>> I'm however unsure where this RequestGenerator should go since it >>> has a dependancy on JTidy. Maybe it should be renamed and go in the >>> HTML block besides the HTMLGenerator. But it doesn't really make >>> sense to have 2 RequestGenerators. >> >> >> I'm wondering whether it would be better to extend the HTML generator >> instead so that it accepts not only html files as external sources >> but also as a POST inputstream and/or request parameters. I tend to >> think that this is the cleanest solution. > > Not only that... but it seems to me that the HTMLGenerator already > does what you want. And even worse, it was me adding such > functionality a few months ago. I need holidays badly. :-) Isn't what > is provided already enough for your needs? see my last message Thanks Guido