cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <>
Subject Re: DispatcherServlet
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:02:57 GMT
Grzegorz Kossakowski skrev:
> Ralph Goers pisze:
>> What am I missing? All of these syntaxes look invalid to me.  Why 
>> isn't the syntax of the normal form
>> protocol://[servername[:port]]/path
>>  From the discussions it isn't obvious to me if the block name should 
>> be the server name or part of the path.

Opaque URI:s (see description earlier in the thread) doesn't have any 
standardized structure after the scheme part, so syntactically the 
servlet protocol is OK. As you can see in the implementation of the 
ServletConnection#parseBlockURI(URI uri),

it actually make good use of the class for URI parsing.

> It could be a server name if we are referencing blocks (servlets) by 
> their bean's IDs. One of requirement for construct:
> protocol://[servername[:port]]/path
> is that it is an absolute path, globally unique. The problem is with 
> servlets referenced by their local aliases (connection names). As far as 
> I understand RFC 1808[1] this is a proper URL:
> protocol:connection_name:/path is a proper URL?
> So we could have:
> servlet:connection_name:/path
> for relative URLs and
> servlet://bean_ID:/path
> for absolute URLs

Don't like having a bean id where you would expect to have a servername. 
  I think the servlet:!com.mycompany.block1.servlet:/... would be OK. It 
has a correct syntax, at least I don't have any associations to the '!' 
and it looks quite "technical" which is good as it mainly is available 
for internal use.


View raw message