cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject Re: CocoonTask
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:31:09 GMT
Cédric Damioli wrote:

> Upayavira,
> Any thoughts about this ? 

Yes. I started thinking, it got complicated, and then forgot to finish 
thinking. Sorry!

> Or do you prefer that I come up with a concrete proposal ? :-)

Not yet.

> Cédric Damioli wrote:
>> Upayavira wrote:
>>> Cédric Damioli wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm using CocoonTask, wich allow CocoonBean to be embedded in a Ant 
>>>> build script. 
>>> Great. I'm glad to hear you're using it. 
>> I'm actually running Cocoon in a servlet, which periodically executes 
>> an Ant build script ending with the CocoonTask :-) Seems complex, but 
>> is really effective !!!
>> And your work on the CLI is great and very appreciated ;-) 

>>>> I'm wondering if there's any reasons why there's no access (via 
>>>> protected method or fields or whatever) to the CocoonBean.
>>> Basically, the CocoonBean is invoked via reflection, using a 
>>> different classloader. Now, I'm no reflection expert, and calling 
>>> each getter and setter one at a time using reflection seemed 
>>> unreasonably complex. So, I chose to create a Delegate class, invoke 
>>> that with reflection, and have that do the real work. 
>> I'm ok with the concept of "single entry point", but what I wanted is 
>> the possibility to act on the CocoonBean before processing the 
>> different uris.
>> Imagine you have a Java method returning a Collection of uris to be 
>> processed, you may want to directly fill the CocoonBean with this 
>> Collection, instead of dynamically re-creating the CocoonBean 
>> configuration. 
So you're saying that you've got code running in other Ant tasks, and 
that Java code wants to make collection data available to the 
CocoonTask? How would it get there? Could you include a sample of the 
code that your CocoonAntDelegate would use?

>>>> I wanted to use it directly to add BeanListeners, eventually add 
>>>> targets, and so on...
>>> What sort of listeners would you like to add? If you want to specify 
>>> a different listener, I would suggest coming up with a generic way 
>>> to specify listeners and add that to the BeanConfigurator, so that 
>>> all users of the CLI and Ant task get to benefit. 
>> I wanted to add org.apache.cocoon.bean.BeanListener implementations 
>> to my instance of CocoonBean.
>> The problem with adding this at BeanConfigurator level is that we 
>> can't interact with the Ant Project (or its Properties), for example, 
>> or whatever is not directly tied to the Bean.
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean that you can't interact with 
the Ant project? You can use Ant properties in the Cocoon task. Are you 
looking for a greater integration?

I think you're getting at something here. What I'd like to see is the 
Ant task using Ant's methods and approaches to configure itself, rather 
than using Java - putting your code into Java can hide it, as far as the 
Ant script is concerned.

>>>> IMHO, the best way to "open" the CocoonTask is to allow subclasses 
>>>> to change the delegate class 
>>>> ("org.apache.cocoon.bean.helpers.AntDelegate" at the moment) and to 
>>>> give this delegate access to the calling Ant project.
>>> So you supply a piece of java that configures the bean before 
>>> running? Hmmm, I would much rather extend the xconf format to be 
>>> able to add everything you want. The CocoonTask really should not 
>>> assume any Java knowledge in its users. 
>> Of course, but I think that the xconf format is already very complete 
>> for users who do not want to write any Java code : all the setters of 
>> the Bean have their counterparts in the xconf format (except the 
>> addBuildListener). The next step would be to add a syntax to add Java 
>> entry points (such as  : <listener class="..."/> or <configurator 
>> class="..."/>) but users of such a syntax would have to write Java 
>> code anyway.
>> What I proposed is to have the possibility to extend the CocoonTask 
>> (or the AntDelegate, or both) to provide access to users (such as me 
>> :-) ) who want to have more control over the Bean.
I'm okay with that, but I'd like to see if it is possible to keep that 
sort of configuration out of Java, until really necessary.

I'd love to see ways of dynamically creating your list of URIs, and a 
range of other bean listeners that do other things, other than the 
default one, etc ,etc.

Regards, Upayavira

View raw message