Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
From: "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
To: <dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [Kernel2.2] Source Resolving
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:57:30 +0200
Organization: S&N AG
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19E35472-8312-11D8-9E05-000393C27E0C@betaversion.org>
Thread-Index: AcQXHhV64WPwwZ2kR2+Qsf4BU5vUlQAAXMvQ
Message-ID: <OFA7C3303A.EFF90C0C-ONC1256E68.0046669B@sundn.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"

Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> 
> I'm thinking that blocks should always be distributed as 
> "zip" files (note, not JAR archives), containing a 
> "block.xml" file (block
> descriptor) and the different JARs required by it (its 
> libraries) or its directories...
> 
> This zip should be expanded by a Library implementation so 
> that a Loader can instantiate a Block, and this expansion can 
> (should) be done in the temp directory...
> 
Ah, yes, I remember - we discussed this long time ago. Right. Sorry.

> >> If we want to build the full resolver inside the framework itself, 
> >> and therefore the "resolve" method in "Wirings" and "Wire" will 
> >> accept "block:wiring:/path" instead of only 
> "wiring:/path", then yes, 
> >> I agree with you that source resolution should be closer 
> (or same as) 
> >> Excalibur's SourceResolver.
> >
> > Currently, I don't know which way is better :) Perhaps I have to 
> > understand the whole thing before I should comment on just some 
> > parts...
> 
> In my requirement for the framework as VNU I don't personally 
> need the "extended" (a-la SourceResolver) resolution, but 
> it's trivial to implement, although it poses some questions 
> on how to implement it... 
> I'll leave this up to you guys to decide what's better...

:)

> 
> >> Only "issue" I might see with that is that Excalibur's 
> Source doesn't 
> >> have the "isDirectory()" and "children()" methods, so, 
> well, I don't 
> >> absolutely like it because it's prone to hacks.
> >>
> > Ah, this is in a sub interface of Source (TraversableSource or 
> > something like that).
> 
> On 31 Mar 2004, at 13:09, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> 
> > Uh? It's in TraversableSource, a subinterface, yes, but 
> it's there...
> 
> I still prefer something like:
> 
> if (!source.isDirectory()) throw Exception("I need a directory");
> 
> rather than
> 
> if (!(source instanceof TraversableSource)) throw 
> Exception("I need a directory");
> 
> I don't see the point of two interfaces (and as I did, it's 
> easy to miss).
> 
Yes, that's true. Ok, so time will tell what's best :)

Thanks!
Carsten