forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Dispatcher 1.0 - towards a stable version
Date Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:51:32 GMT
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> Hi all,
> I will have some time in the next week to enhance the performance of the
> dispatcher. The performance always have been the Achilles’ heel of the
> dispatcher. 

Actually, the achilles' heel is the lack of clarity in the documentation.

This mail is an amazing coincidence. One of our team hear asked me this 
morning how to do something with the dispatcher. I've done it before and 
have sites running dispatcher, but I can't remember how I did it and I 
can't point to any documentation about it.

In many cases this will mean that the dispatcher is not used and a 
potential contributor is lost.

Performance is irrelevant if there are no users.

> Another week point was/is the readability of the code. 

Indeed, this is part of the documentation.

> Another thing that I always wanted to integrate are java based
> contracts. I want to allow within the next version of the dispatcher
> that one can use a class instead of a xsl. 

How about we finish one feature before adding another?

> Since future version of cocoon are based on Spring and I am really
> appreciate Spring as an excellent IoC container the dispatcher will be
> as well based it.


> My plan is that this work will be compatible with the current version of
> the dispatcher. It will provide simple shell scripts to update the
> current version of structurer/contracts to the new form. I do not like
> the specific extension we have for structurer (.fv)/contracts (.ft)
> anymore since they are historic and do not reflect anymore the reality.
> To remember ft stands for forrestTemplate and fv for forrestView which
> is the first names of contracts and structurer. 
> Instead I suggest *.contracts.xml and *.structurer.xml.


> My initial plan is to reuse the code from whiteboard/dispatcher, conduct
> the needed changes to work with java contracts and add spring support.
> Any thoughts.

Documentation. Documentation and, er, documentation.

Other than that go for it!


View raw message