cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: RFC-2396 (Was: Re: [RT] composition vs. inheritance in blocks)
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:16:54 GMT
Peter Hunsberger wrote:

>On Apr 4, 2005 10:26 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom <danielf@nada.kth.se> wrote:
>  
>
>>Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>
><snip/>
>
>  
>
>>As all URI discussions tend to provoke strong feelings for Stefano, it's
>>best to say directly that this question is not important enough for me
>>to fight about ;)
>>
>>But anyway, whether we go for an opaque custom protocol or base the
>>block protocol on hierachial URIs we need to get into the specifics for
>>the block URI scheme to be able to implement it.
>>
>>WDYT?
>>    
>>
>
>He, he...  The more I look at this the more I wonder if maybe it
>really isn't crazy to allow blocks to specify a resolver intercept
>scheme.  Just lift the code directly out of mod-rewrite/mod-redirect
>and let a block tell Cocoon what URI's have special concerns:
>
><resolver>match spec</resolver>
>
>then you can go either way...
>  
>
I'm not following you, we already has source factories, so we can make 
our resolver as special as we want to. The question was rather if we 
should make them less special by using java.net.URI. Or do you have 
something else in mind?

/Daniel


Mime
View raw message