cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor (was RE: Migrating TreeProcessor to Fortress)
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:30:50 GMT
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:19, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Bruno Dumon wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 12:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > 
> >>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >>
> >>>Unico Hommes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Wild idea: context:/ identifies the current context, context:// 
> >>>>identifies the root sitemap? Like in cocoon: protocol?
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Great idea (again!). Currently, the "context:" protocol requires the 
> >>>double-slash and links to the root sitemap, so we can implement this 
> >>>additional behaviour with a single slash with no compatibility break. 
> >>>And the similarity with "cocoon:" makes it easy to understand.
> >>>
> >>>This makes me think that "cocoon:" must also be be relative to the 
> >>>"current" sitemap, and not that handling the request.
> >>
> >>BAD IDEA.
> >>
> >>Please, you are adding contracts to the URL spec that aren't there.
> > 
> > 
> > Not really true. The basic structure of an URL is:
> > 
> > <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
> > 
> > and the interpretation of the scheme specific part depends on the
> > scheme.
> > 
> > 
> >>Instead I would highly encourage you to provide a way to set the base
> >>URL where relative URLs would be resolved to.
> >>
> >>Work *with* the contract instead of extending it in non-intuitive ways.
> >>
> >>See my rant in another email.
> 
> Again see my rant in the other email.  There are HUGE differnces in the
> way the URL is interpreted based on the existence of a repetitive character.
> It should be more obvious than that.

I somewhat agree with your rant, but I don't see the situation in Cocoon
changing any time soon since it would break backwards compatibility. I
find the cocoon:/ versus cocoon:// convenient to use though.

BTW, there was a little error in your rant:
context://path/to/current/context/ should have been
context:///path/to/current/context/

> And don't forget that URLs do have the concept of *resolving* relative
> URLs.  THose are the contracts I am refering to.

Yes, but it's still up to the scheme to specify if it follows those
contracts or not.

-- 
Bruno Dumon                             http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org                          bruno@apache.org


Mime
View raw message