cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: Splitting xconf files step 2: the sitemap
Date Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:01:30 GMT
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> Hi team,
>> I finished step 2 of the include feature: it is now fully operational 
>> in the sitemap in the same way as in xconf files. The sitemap-specific 
>> configuration attributes such as "label", "mime-type" and 
>> "pipeline-hint" are taken into account on sitemap components wherever 
>> they are declared, even in the main cocoon.xconf (see 
>> CocoonServiceManager and ProcessorComponentInfo for more details).
>> Step 3 will allow for a flat fortress-style configuration (the current 
>> style will of course still be available).
>> Now comes a question: each block defining sitemap components will 
>> provide a [block-name]-sitemap.xconf, but where should we include it? 
>> So far, I see the following alternatives for inclusion, but don't know 
>> which one to choose:
>> 1 - include it in the main cocoon.xconf (this is possible as xconf 
>> files and <map:components> are totally equivalent)
>> 2 - include it in the root sitemap.xmap, similarily to what I did for 
>> cocoon.xconf
>> 3 - include it in the block-specific sitemap. That makes the smallest 
>> root sitemap yet still allows to easily add block-specific components 
>> to any sitemap as [block-name]-sitemap.xconf can be located in 
>> context://WEB-INF/xconf
>> Thoughts? 
> I prefer option 3 as it means (at least I think it means) components 
> will only be defined if they are actually accessed.  

+1 for #3 as well.

> In effect, this 
> means you could deploy Cocoon with all its blocks with little to know 
> overhead.  IMO, this is also one case where it might be "OK" to 
> "automagically" load the xconf file that is in the same directory as the 
> sitemap (perhaps only if one isn't specifically included).

-1 for automagic: we don't do it anywhere (and worked well so far), so I 
don't see why starting to do it here.


View raw message