Mailing-List: contact cocoon-users-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:16:39 +0100 (MET)
From: Uli Mayring <ulim@denic.de>
To: cocoon-users@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Processor after XSP - impossible since 1.8.1?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101291337540.2622-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10101292109150.12232-100000@denics7.denic.de>
"X-Ncc-RegID: de.denic"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes/Denic(Release 5.0.4 |June 8,
 2000) at 29.01.2001
 21:16:31,
	Serialize by Router on notes/Denic(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 29.01.2001
 21:16:32,
	Serialize complete at 29.01.2001 21:16:32
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Donald Ball wrote:

> no! i vote -1, i say keep it like it is! i _like_ having the reactor kick
> the processing chain out of the system if something results in a redirect.
> i think this is a _far_ more common desire than what you want.

Assuming I understood Robin correctly: if you have no processor running 
after XSP, then you're fine as it is. So why should cocoon fix a user
error (superflous processing instruction) at the expense of another user's
valid code?

> in your case, why don't you have the first processor send a signal to the
> second processor using a specially named element in the DOM - the signal
> being, send a redirect here when you're done.

I have no first processor, just XSP and then another one. I would have to
implement response.sendRedirect behavior in every processor I wish to use
after XSP - isn't that a bit kludgy?

Ulrich

-- 
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Softwareentwicklung