forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Unico Hommes" <Un...@hippo.nl>
Subject RE: LocationMapModule
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:33:31 GMT


Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> 
> Unico Hommes wrote:
> 
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > 
> >>Unico Hommes wrote:
> >>...
> >>>OK, what about creating a special purpose matcher:
> ...
> >>>And have an equivalent one for regular expression matching. 
> >>
> >>Actually, I think this is exactly what you meant isn't it?
> >>
> >>Hmmm, not sure... how would you use this differently from 
> the current 
> >>parameter matcher?
> > 
> > The LocationMap.HINT_PARAM parameter is not passed in from the
> > locationmap.xml but is already passed in from the LocationMap. So
> > actually it would be like so:
> >
> > <locationmap>
> > 
> >   <components>
> >     <matchers default="lm">
> >       <matcher name="lm" type="o.a.c.matching.LocationMapMatcher" />
> >     </matchers>
> >   </components>
> > 
> >   <locator>
> >     <match pattern="**.html">
> >       <match pattern"style/**.html">
> >         <location src="somewhere/styles/{1}.xsl" />
> >       </match>
> >       <match pattern="source/**.html">
> >         <location src="somewhereelse/content/{1}.xml" />
> >       </match>
> >     </match>
> >   </locator>
> > 
> > </locationmap>
> 
> Got it.
> 
> I see that it's very nice this way, as the user has normally 
> no evidence 
> other than the initial clean declaration that he's using a particular 
> matcher.

Yep.

> 
> :-)
> 
> >> You see, what I want is not to have to extend the current matchers,
> >> but to be able to use them as-is. Since the most important matchers
> >> match to the request URI, it seemed natural to me to add this info
> >> to these matchers.
> > 
> > I see three, two reqexp flavors and one wildcard one.
> ...
> > Remember there are only three matchers that actually would 
> have to be
> > wrapped this way. If you extend these and add the four lines of code
> > that would be needed to make them compatible with the 
> locationmap, you'd
> > also get rid of the extra configuration section you'd have 
> in the case
> > of a wrapper matcher.
> ...
> > I doubt there will be so many matchers to wrap/compose in order to
> > make it pay off to have that additional configuration requirement.
> 
> Ok, got it.
> 
> If someone wants to make his matcher available as a 
> locator-matcher, he 
> can simply extend it like you have shown.
> 
> That means *any* matcher, not only the one that gets the 
> request URI, so 
> in fact this solution is more general too.
> 

Exactly.

> I agree 100% -> +1
> 
> Oh, and thanks again for implementing this and taking your time to 
> discuss with me about it, it has been very nice :-)
> 

I agree :-) And I am really glad you liked it that much ;-) But all credits for reusing the
sitemap matchers and selectors belongs to you. Thanks for that too!


-- Unico

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


Mime
View raw message