> From: Michael Melhem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:05:40AM -0500, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
... > > Michael, > > > > Have you considered using just one pipeline? Or two (and no more than > > two)? > > > > > > > This is not a good thing, especially if you have lots of complex > > pipelines. > > > > Here I fail to see how this is much simpler than using action. Why not > > just: > > > > ... > > > > <map:act type="let-person-in-if-they-have-session"> > > > > > <map:match pattern="URI1*"> > > > ... > > > </map:match> > > > > > > <map:match pattern="URI1*"> > > > ... > > > </map:match> > > > > > > ... > > > > </map:act> > > Hi Vadim, > > Thanks for your comments. I have not considered wrapping multiple > match blocks within a single act block like that. > > Still, wouldnt the above nest everything one (or more) layer(s) deeper, > making things less simple? This might be just my personal opinion, but I feel that having all protected resources gathered together in one place under one action is better than same resources scattered among multiple pipelines and different parts of the sitemap. > Consider the situation where the act block is large and spans more > than one page? I can easily imagine this. Moreover, I have similar constructs in my sitemap. > Wouldn't handling the exception be more difficult in that case > where if im not mistaken, you would need to ensure any > matching URI that does not require a session is not within the act > block. I do group all the resources under one act element, as described above. If you think that multi-page sitemap is not readable, than it is time to use sub-sitemaps. Collect all protected resources in the sitemap, and mount it from the main sitemap. You can wrap mount instruction with the action. > IMHO I think a more scalable solution would be.... > > <!-- session check here would not be a good idea --> > <map:match pattern="login"> > <map:parameter name="conditional" value="unConditional"/> > ... > </map:match> > > <map:match pattern="URI1*"> > ... > </map:match> > > > <!-- requires no session check --> > <map:match pattern="simpleLinks-page"> > <map:parameter name="conditional" value="unConditional"/> > ... > </map:match> > > <map:match pattern="URI2*"> > ... > </map:match> BTW, your solution is less performing. One action will be executed once, skipping all of the matchers, which could sum to noticeable amount of CPU cycles (especially RE matchers) > All that this proposal (Bug 7713) does is allow matchers to be more > configurable, and does not take away any existing functionality. I'm not sure I like this proposal. At present moment, this looks to me that instead of solving management issues you have, you are trying to employ technology to hide these issues deeper. > thoughts? Above. Vadim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
