Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <41345CED.4010807@hippo.nl>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:11:41 +0200
From: Unico Hommes <unico@hippo.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Actual implementation of passthrough
References: <ch1i74$2tj$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <ch1i74$2tj$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

>
> If the @passthrough attribute is to be put in the <pipelines> section 
> of the mounted sitemap, it seems easy: make the PipelinesNodeBuilder 
> set a passthrough variable in the PipelinesNode, and have the 
> PipelinesNode tell or not the last PipelineNode if it has to stop:
>
>     public void setChildren(ProcessingNode[] nodes) {
>         // Mark the last pipeline so that it can throw a
>         //    ResourceNotFoundException
>         //-> put an if() here
>           ((PipelineNode)nodes[nodes.length - 1]).setLast(true);
>         //
>         super.setChildren(nodes);
>     }
>
> The point is that it makes sense for the mount node to set it, but I'm 
> not sure which is the preferred way in the TreeProcessor to pass that 
> info from the MountNodeBuilder to the PipelinesNode.
>
> Suggestions?
>

What about letting MountNode catch the "No pipeline matched request" 
exception that is thrown during processor.buildPipeline() and 
processor.process() and decide whether or not to rethrow it there. Would 
that work?

--
Unico