From dev-return-72084-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org Wed Mar 09 04:13:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39747 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2005 04:13:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2005 04:13:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 90623 invoked by uid 500); 9 Mar 2005 04:13:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 90556 invoked by uid 500); 9 Mar 2005 04:13:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 90539 invoked by uid 99); 9 Mar 2005 04:13:34 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from blossom.betaversion.org (HELO blossom.betaversion.org) (62.140.213.100) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:13:34 -0800 Received: by blossom.betaversion.org (Postfix, from userid 101) id A4A27FAD91; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 04:13:29 +0000 (GMT) X-AntiVirus-Version: ClamAV 0.83/755 X-AntiSpam-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 X-AntiSpam-Status: No (score=1.7/limit=7.5) X-AntiSpam-Rules: rcvd_in_njabl_dul, listed Received: from [192.168.1.102] (h-68-166-234-166.cmbrmaor.dynamic.covad.net [68.166.234.166]) by blossom.betaversion.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC964FAD8C for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 04:13:28 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <422E77EA.7040805@apache.org> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:13:30 -0500 From: Stefano Mazzocchi Organization: Apache Software Foundation User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Any JCR (JSR-170) scratchpad code for Cocoon yet? References: <422C60FD.7090809@apache.org> <422C92AE.7030906@apache.org> <422C95C5.3060605@apache.org> <422C9AF4.30207@apache.org> <422CBCC8.7010102@apache.org> <422CC2A7.8080404@apache.org> <422DBA80.9080105@wyona.com> <422DBC4D.9000409@upaya.co.uk> <422DC00D.3030800@wyona.com> <422DC63E.6070201@apache.org> <422DF202.5040907@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <422DF202.5040907@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Reinhard Poetz wrote: > >> Michael Wechner wrote: >> >>> Upayavira wrote: >>> >>>> Michael Wechner wrote: >>>> >>>>> what about specifying the repo as parameter, e.g. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because this is a source, not a generator. The parameter would be a >>>> parameter to the generator. >>> >>> >>> >>> ok. Well, I thought the generator could pass it on to the source, but >>> I guess I >>> don't fully understand how it should work. Will try to figure it out. >>> >>> But on the other hand I don't fully understand why Sylvan would like >>> to use >>> jcrX://... instead of jcr://X/... as Stefano suggested, which seems >>> to make >>> more sense. >> >> >> >> same here. >> The repository configuration could be done in the source configuration >> (.xconf) but I guess that Sylvain is aware of this ;-) > > > > My suggestion of having different protocols for different repositories > comes from lazyness as with jcr://repo/ the first path element has to be > handled by the source factory implementation that then needs to call the > appropriate repository (and also manage a collection of repositories) > whereas having several protocols allows all this stuff to be handled > automatically by the service manager and the source resolver. > > Or we could also have a RepositorySelector and select a repository using > the first path element. Hmm... that may be a good option as an > application also need to access a repository directly and not only > through a source. Hmm... I know it came from lazyness. And that is also why I hope you'll reconsider spending those 15 minutes and save all of us (and you!) terrible pain in the future in answering a gazillion email about why in hell that was done ;-) -- Stefano.