cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Unico Hommes" <Un...@hippo.nl>
Subject RE: repository block (was Re: [RT] Source extensions)
Date Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:03:50 GMT
 

Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> 
> Unico Hommes wrote:
> 
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Guido Casper [mailto:gcasper@s-und-n.de]
> >>Sent: donderdag 23 oktober 2003 20:22
> >>To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> >>Subject: Re: repository block (was Re: [RT] Source extensions)
> >>
> >>Unico Hommes <Unico@hippo.nl> wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>>>-Adding a setSourceProperty() method to the
> >>>>>>            
> >>>>>>
> >>>>SourceInspector interface
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>>>Already have it on my local copy. :-)
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>Cool! So I leave this to you :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>Actually I think it's better to define a subinterface named 
> >>>SourceDescriptor that defines these methods. This would create the 
> >>>distinction between read-only properties and read/write properties 
> >>>nicely. Otherwise the read-only inspectors would need to 
> throw some 
> >>>kind of exception for those modifying methods.
> >>>
> >>>This would also mean that SourceInspectorManager becomes 
> >>>SourceDescriptionManager and throws an exception when it 
> is asked to 
> >>>perform a persistent operation for a read-only property. To allow 
> >>>clients to asses whether a SourceProperty is read-only I 
> propose to 
> >>>add an isModifiable() method on the SourceProperty. To avoid that 
> >>>users think SourceProperty.setValue() will persist their 
> >>>modifications perhaps it is better to remove that method.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>All this makes sense IMO.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>A related change I need to make is described here:
> >>>http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23699 this will
> >>>      
> >>>
> >not
> >  
> >
> >>>only improve performance of querying for a specific 
> property but is 
> >>>prerequisite for setting properties via the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >SourceDescriptionManager.
> >  
> >
> >>I'm not sure.
> >>What exactly is the meaning of the returned Strings?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >They identify a property type: namespace + "#" + propname. 
> The previous implementation of the inspector manager's 
> getSourceProperty() method was looping over all registered 
> inspectors until it found the property it was looking for.
> >  
> >
> 
> You're proposing an RDF-ish syntax. Have you considered the 
> JAXP syntax, i.e. "{namespace}property" (see [1]). It has IMO 
> the advantage of being less ambiguous, at distinction between 
> a namespaced and non-namespaced property is done only on the 
> first character (is it a '{' or not).
> 

I didn't know RDF used that style. Haven't researched it very much, but
the notation made sense to me. It's currently not very important anyway
because it's only used internally to communicate responsibilities and
have a unique identifier for properties.

> Unless, of course, every property _has_ to be namespaced.
> 

Actually I don't know. I tend to think every property *should* be
namespaced.

-- Unico

> Sylvain
> 
> [1]
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/javax/xml/transform/Tr
> ansformer.html#setOutputProperty(java.lang.String,%20java.lang.String)
> 
> -- 
> Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, 
> Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance  -  
> http://www.orixo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message