cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor (was RE: Migrating TreeProcessor to Fortress)
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:25:07 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> 
> 2/ Resources inheritance
> Resources are nothing more than untyped virtual components (yeah 
> Stefano, I know, they should be serializers). So if a resource isn't 
> defined in a sitemap, we go up to the parent sitemap's component manager 
> and lookup the resource there.
> 
+1

> 
> 3/ View inheritance
> Views are nothing more than virtual serializers, with the main 
> difference that their hint is defined at runtime by the "cocoon-view" 
> parameter. And since these are components, lookup goes up to the parent 
> sitemap if a view is not declared in a given sitemap, thus providing 
> inheritance.
> 
+1

> 
> Side note: relative URIs
> ------------------------
> The various considerations about inheritance above leads to the question 
> of resolution of relative source URI (Carsten raised this issue some 
> time ago): what is the base URI that should be used by the resolver?
> 
> My opinion is that the base URI should be the one of the sitemap 
> _handling_ the request. This means that "jumping" to another sitemap 
> through virtual components or view inheritance should not affect the 
> base URI.
> 
+1

> However, there are many situations where we want to use a source 
> relative to the _current_ sitemap regardless on how it's called. For 
> this, I propose a new protocol similar to how "context:" behaves with 
> the root sitemap, but for non-root sitemaps. The "sitemap:" protocol 
> comes to mind, but I'm not sure this is a good name.
> 
Yes, this "sitemap:" protocol comes up every 8 months I think, and with
the resolving policy from above it even makes more sense: +1

> 
> Implementation
> --------------
> 
> <SNIP/>
Due to time constraints I can't follow you very closely, but I have
the feeling that it makes sense.

> Conclusion
> ----------
> 
> I'm wondering if we should write this new sitemap engine in the 2.2 
> branch or if it should go in the 2.1. Fortress isn't a requirement to 
> implement this, and it will allow us to provide views and resource 
> inheritance before the 2.2 is out.
> 
I think we shouldn't change the running implementation for 2.1, let's
do it for 2.2 and if it is the "killer implementation", we can move
it to 2.1 later on anyway.
But for now, we should focus on 2.2 and see that we get a startable
cocoon version again :)

Carsten

Mime
View raw message