Hi Torsten,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 04:57:58PM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> guys, could you share your visions or RT on this... I don't want this
> thread to be just dropped without any result.
I agree. Lets nut this one out.
> More RT from me:
>
> Another possible sollution for a per cocoon application configuration
> would be to tie an optional xconf to (the mount point of) a sitemap.
> Although I'm quite sure if chaining of both of this is a valid
> assumption I am sure that every application will come with it's own
> sitemap. So dropping in the application currently means dropping a
> sitemap mount. Stefano, would you like to see this change, too?
> If not I see two ways of doing this.
>
<snip>...
Interesting idea, but I think they're based on the assumption
that component configuration space is as equally dividable as an
applications uri-space.
This may or may not be true depending on the uri-space of the
application being developed. Also if components are required across 2
subsitemaps they would need to be in a parent sitemap anyway, right ?
Perhaps this is flame bait, but what if we ran cinclude over the
cocoon.roles and cocoon.xconf file to include files ? Then it's just a
matter of using the predefined cinclude syntax ?
Regardless of how, we really need a nice way to separate these files
for large size applications. When these files start to get large, they
just aren't maintainable.
> Stefano, is this more the direction you thought of?
> Please, I can't wait hear your RT on this!!
I have a suspicion Stefano has an idea based on a bigger
picture here. I'm also interested in hearing it too.
Cheers,
Marcus
--
.....
,,$$$$$$$$$, Marcus Crafter
;$' '$$$$: Computer Systems Engineer
$: $$$$: ManageSoft GmbH
$ o_)$$$: 82-84 Mainzer Landstrasse
;$, _/\ &&:' 60327 Frankfurt Germany
' /( &&&
\_&&&&'
&&&&.
&&&&&&&:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
