cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <vadim.gritse...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: DOM Protocol, Was: Revised ResourceLoadAction posted...
Date Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:20:01 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>> My initial though was to have following syntax:
>>
>>    dom:[request|session|context]:<attribute-name>#<jxpath>
>>
>> Xpath, and '#' symbol is obviously optional, and '#' was chosen for 
>> consistency with existing xmldb: protocol.
>
>
>
> Just some thoughts:
> - why "dom" only? We should also allow XMLizable objects.


"dom" is good and short protocol name. XMLizable can be (and should be) 
easily supported, too. I thought of JXPath, actually, which would 
support Java Beans and collections too.


> - what about using input modules?


Good idea! Do we have upload module already? This will quickly deprecate 
part: protocol :)


> We already have some modules that give access to all the 
> above-mentioned attributes and more. This avoids code duplication, 
> improves consistency and allows further extension by simply adding new 
> input-modules.
>
> Considering this, we should find another name for the protocol: 
> "input-module" (too long), "module" (not significant enough), 
> "xml-module" (better)?


Still long ;-) How about "xmodule"? :)


> And then the protocol syntax becomes:
>  xml-module:<module-name>:<attribute-name>#<jxpath>
>
> E.g. "xml-module:session-attr:purchase-order#item[1]"


xmodule:session:purchase-order#item[1] is even better ;-)

Vadim



Mime
View raw message