Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 77471 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2003 14:36:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 77410 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 14:36:52 -0000 Received: from grunt23.ihug.com.au (203.109.249.143) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 14:36:52 -0000 Received: from p500-tnt9.syd.ihug.com.au (expresso.localdomain) [203.173.152.248] by grunt23.ihug.com.au with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vICx-0001cN-00; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:36:52 +1100 Received: from jeff by expresso.localdomain with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vIFw-0006Eo-00; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:39:56 +1100 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:39:56 +1100 From: Jeff Turner To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org, cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: [rt] resource-exists selector Message-ID: <20030318143956.GD3483@expresso.localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org, cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org References: <20030318111815.GD4700@expresso.localdomain> <3E772940.3010907@verizon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E772940.3010907@verizon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:12:16AM -0500, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Jeff Turner wrote: > > >(note: [rt]'s are little [RT]s ;) > > > > > ... > > >So, can I check this in, deprecate ResourceExistsAction, and we all > >live happily ever after? > > > > Check in resource-exists selector: +1. > > Deprecate resource-exists action: +0. > > What about resource-exists matcher? ;-) > > PS: RT: 1st rule of sitemap component equivalency: Every action could be > renamed to/rewritten as a matcher Heh.. I think you're right. Matchers, Selectors and Actions are all switches that can do logic. Actions have an unfair advantage in that they get passed a SourceResolver. I actually wrote a ResourceExistsMatcher first, then decided a Selector was more traditional. --Jeff > Vadim > >