On Wednesday 30 January 2002 15:59, Aaron E. Ross wrote:
> ok.. this how it works right?
>
> a request for document.html arrives
>
> document.html is an xml file that uses the taglibs that i defined
> using xpathscript or xslt.
>
> the taglib creates an xml file that i can transform using one of
> many stylesheets choosen using AxKit's media type and associated
> logic.
>
> if i want to change the appearance of my site, i pay a fancy pants
> designer gobs of money to write xsl stylesheets based on a dtd of the
> xml that my xsp/taglib generates.
You are mostly correct, but the terminology isn't exactly there, and that
helps when asking questions, reading the docs, etc ;-)
Say you want to produce XML dynamically, using XSP/taglibs.
A request for doc.html (more likely doc.xsp) comes in. That document is an
XML document that can contain Perl code, literal XML (to be copied to the
next step), and special tags that are in a set of given namespaces. Those
namespaces map to taglibs, which are defined in Perl modules. Taglibs see
those tags, and use them to output some XML (it can be anything so long as
it's well-formed). So you now have a new, dynamically produced XML document.
Then you have the formatting step. A stylesheet, either XPathScript or XSLT,
will take the XML document we just produced and turn it into something that
the user-agent will (hopefully) understand. That's something that your
designers can do, if they spend a little time learning some of the tricks.
> > requests go through the same provider, which is only dependant on the
> > apache config mappings for a particular request. I.e it won't make any
>
> wouldn't it be possible to subclass one of the Providers and simply
> pass along requests for things that I don't want to handle?
That should be possible. I think someone did that for a Provider that handles
directory listings.
> what i want is a way to dynamically provide the xml that will be used
> for a given request. now that i understand more clearly, i think that
> a taglib is the right tool, but being able to easily define and extend
> providers seems like a really nice feature.
Both have their pros and cons, and Providers are already useful for a fair
number of things imho. But I agree that a brainstorm on how to better them
would be very welcome.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- CTO
k n o w s c a p e : // venture knowledge agency www.knowscape.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrious people create industry.
Lazy people create civilization.
--Hideo Nakamura
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
