cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/src/java/org/apache/cocoon/reading ResourceReader.java
Date Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:37:57 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>  
>
>>cziegeler@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>> @@ -143,8 +137,57 @@
>>>      logger="sitemap.reader.resource" 
>>>      pool-max="32" pool-min="1" pool-grow="4"/>
>>>      <!-- optional reader configuration -->
>>> -    <map:parameter name="expires" value="86400000"/>
>>> +    <parameter name="expires" value="86400000"/>
>>>    </map:readers>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>The old doc was simply wrong. The original author confused pipeline
>usage with component configuration.
>
>  
>
>>Why not map:parameter here for consistency sake, like in:
>>    <map:matcher name="mount-table" 
>>src="org.apache.cocoon.matching.MountTableMatcher">
>>      <map:parameter name="ignore-missing-tables" value="true"/>
>>    </map:matcher>
>>    
>>
>
>
>This would be the first component that uses the sitemap namespace
>for the configuration.
>  
>

Ummm... Why matcher can use map:parameter and reader can not?



>>And more general observation: Should we prefer configure(), or 
>>parameterize()? Currently, some sitemap components use parameters, and 
>>the rest - configuration:
>>
>>(48 matches in Cocoon codebase, including non-sitemap components)
>>
>>Classes implementing configure():
>>    Sendmail
>>    SectionCutterAction
>>    AbstractControllerAction
>>    HttpHeaderAction
>>    InputModuleAction
>>    LocaleAction
>>    PropagatorAction
>>    ...
>>(161 matches in Cocoon codebase, lots of them are sitemap components)
>>
>>    
>>
>Ok, to be honest, I don't know which way is the best. In general using
>parameters is imho the better looking solution, but that's only my
>personal opinion.
>
>Now, we shouldn't change the configuration of existing components, but we
>could (if we want) establish a guideline for new components. I choose
>my prefered way for the reader. But we can change this to whatever the
>majaority thinks.
>  
>

Guideline would be good! Anybody else has opinion?

Vadim


Mime
View raw message