Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <57130.165.98.153.184.1113191657.squirrel@www.agssa.net>
In-Reply-To: <425988C7.1080103@apache.org>
References: <4258243D.2000505@apache.org>   
    <OFC2B3B1FB.5582B2AA-ONC1256FDE.006B4417-C1256FDE.006F04D6@kuhnle.net>
    <48450.165.98.153.184.1113091020.squirrel@www.agssa.net>
    <425988C7.1080103@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:54:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Manually specifying a mounted sub sitemap's context
From: "Antonio Gallardo" <agallardo@agssa.net>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-1.FC2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal

On Dom, 10 de Abril de 2005, 15:12, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>On Sab, 9 de Abril de 2005, 14:27, Jochen Kuhnle dijo:
>>
>>
>>>Sylvain Wallez <sylvain@apache.org> wrote on 09.04.2005 20:51:41:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In other words, should it be:
>>>>
>>>>  <map:mount src="foo/bar/" context="baz"/>
>>>>and
>>>>  <map:sitemap>
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>  <map:mount src="foo/bar/"/>
>>>>and
>>>>  <map:sitemap context="baz"/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My feeling favors the second form, as allowing to specify the context
>>>>externally means that understanding what a sitemap does depends on the
>>>>mount statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Agreed, the second form is easier to understand. The first one was just
>>>easier to implement (at least for me), since MountNode.invoke already
>>>resolves the sitemap context. And this was the point where cocoon went
>>>into endless recursion...
>>>
>>>On the other hand, the first form offers one additional feature:
>>> Mounting
>>>the same sitemap twice with different contexts. I just don't know yet if
>>>this is a good idea...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I see this as a good idea. I have a lot of literally equals sitemaps that
>>with something like that I can get rid of them by just defining his
>>context.
>>
>>
>
> What do you mean by "literally equals"?
>
> Do they differ because:
> - there is a a slight difference in what they should do (in that case
> what about pass-through mounts?)
> - or because they provide the same pipelines but operate on different
> data?

The second:
they provide the same pipelines but operate on different data.

Building webapps, you have some forms sets (businnes module? [BM]) that
provide basic functionality (create, edit, search) on diferent data
(tables). Perhaps this is our fault, I know I can use a parent sitemap for
that. But we don't see it as a good solution for us, since we want to keep
every BM separated (and independent) of the others. That can allow us to
"move" a defined MB to another application by just copy paste a MB.

Maybe we need to find another solution for that.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.