Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 1582 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2005 16:03:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Apr 2005 16:03:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 5495 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2005 16:03:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 5413 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2005 16:03:44 -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 5398 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2005 16:03:44 -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 lakermmtao07.cox.net (HELO lakermmtao07.cox.net) (68.230.240.32) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:03:42 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (really [68.100.13.69]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050411160340.CXKD19214.lakermmtao07.cox.net@[192.168.0.100]> for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:40 -0400 Message-ID: <425A9FDB.7090005@reverycodes.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:39 -0400 From: Vadim Gritsenko User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [Ann/RFC] Virtual Sitemap Components References: <42599554.2080809@nada.kth.se> <425A7079.2000802@apache.org> <425A756E.7060709@reverycodes.com> <425A9CEC.70702@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <425A9CEC.70702@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > >> It can be >> >> >> >> >> That's enough information to build it. > > > I still like the way we agreed in the past and Daniel implemented, the > fact that a generator is a java class or is a subpipeline should not > make any difference in the semantics. You mean - with explicit specification of the class name? I'm fine with it too - that's how I prototyped it in the first place... But folks here have desire for some syntax sugar, IIUC. Vadim