forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: File prefix again (Re: Cocoon CLI - how to generate the whole site)
Date Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:30:47 GMT

Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Turner wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Having to interrogate the filesystem to decide a URI's scheme is a 
>>> total hack.
>>> What happens if our docs are stored in Xindice, or anything other than a
>>> filesystem?  Resource-exists is going to break.
> 
> 
>> Hmmm, this is a good point, but not a resource-exists "conceptual" 
>> problem. I can test if a resource exists also in remote repositories.
>> If the "file:" thing takes care different backends, there is no reason 
>> why a better resource-exists cannot. So seems is more about the 
>> deficiencies of the resource-exists implementation rather than the 
>> need of a site: scheme.
> 
> 
> The way resource-exist was brought into Forrest was based on a hackish 
> idea. 

Please explain why.

> The way it works is a hack. I like the file: approach much better, 

Why?

I'm a user. I take a file. Put it in the directory. Link to it. See it 
in the result.

What do you not like of this? Why is it better if I write the link with 
file: in it? Because that will be the only difference to the user.

> and I don't feel like I don't understand Cocoon or anything else because 
> of that. It's on the same level of letting the user put hints in his 
> documents as we currently inform people about some obscure XLink 
> attribute which can be set to stop crawling. At the very least, file: 
> will have been designed & coded by a community.

I don't get this.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message