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)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <200408310632.i7V6Wb528063@confixx.bestiole.ch>
References: <200408310632.i7V6Wb528063@confixx.bestiole.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Message-Id: <66CC2D03-FB18-11D8-8CA0-000A95AF004E@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Add pass-through capability to mounted pipelines
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:38:42 +0200
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org

Le 31 ao=FBt 04, =E0 08:33, Carsten Ziegeler a =E9crit :

> David Crossley wrote:
>
>> +1 for the ability to return for subsequent processing.
>> I like the explicit name "return-no-match".
>> The default should ideally be true, but does that sit okay
>> with back-compatibility?
>>
> No :) The default should be "false".

+1, the current behaviour should be the default

> I'm not a native speaker (obviously) and don't want to be *too* picky,
> but "return-no-match" sounds a little bit wrong to me.
> I think something like "return-on-no-match" or so would
> be better, no?

Agreed, or even "continue-if-no-match".

A bit verbose, but Nicola says in his proposal "...make it possible for=20=

mounts not to necessarily halt processing if no match is found" which=20
translates in my (simple ;-) mind to "optionally continue processing if=20=

no match is found".

But it's so hard to agree on names, whoever does the implementation=20
gets to decide ;-)

-Bertrand