cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Unico Hommes" <>
Subject RE: repository block (was Re: [RT] Source extensions)
Date Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:39:08 GMT

Guido Casper wrote:
> I would like to make the following changes to the 2.1 repo and will go
> ahead if noone objects (as soon I find some time):
> -Creating a repository block and moving there all source interfaces
> part of excalibur's sourceresolve package.


> -Moving there the SourceInspector interface and implementations


> -Adding a setSourceProperty() method to the SourceInspector interface

Already have it on my local copy. :-)

> -Marking the slide block as unstable

That would be because the slide block then depends on repository block
and inherits its unstable state.

> -Moving there Linotypes repository abstraction(s)
> So the repository block would currently be not much more than a single
> place to better be able compare/comment/improve/unify/consolidate.
> This would remove the dependency of the webdav block and the
> block on the slide block but make them all (including Linotype) depend
> on the repository block.

You could also move TraversableSourceDescriptionGenerator into the
repository block. It's a pair with the source extension interfaces and
doing so would remove the dependency of the scratchpad block on the
repository block.

I am currently working on a simple JdbcSourceInspector for mutable
SourceProperties and a RepositorySource that acts as a Source wrapper
and adds Inspectability.

-- Unico

> Guido
> Unico Hommes <> wrote:
> > Guido Casper wrote:
> >> Unico Hommes <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> One of the things I've noticed that I would like to discuss is
> >>> the Source extensions such as LockableSource, InspectableSource,
> >>> etc. are currently all located inside the Slide block, whereas
> >>> should probably be located in a more general block (a repository
> >>> block?) or else move them to excalibur sourceresolve.
> >>
> >> I thought about that as well. The problem is that some of them do
> >> seem general enough to move to excalibur. I'm +1 for a separate
> >> although I'm not sure about the name.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, a separate block seems more obvious to me too, at least for
> > of the functionality. Property management may be general enough for
> > Excalibur imho.

View raw message