This is true, but the coding is trivial--it's just one line. This could be put into the util logicsheet, removing the need to know Java to do it.
If we keep both methods, a step towards making Cocoon more user-friendly would be some doc explaining when to use which method (which goes back to a use-case I suppose). Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Per Kreipke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:54 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1 > > > > >Personally I much prefer esql to SQLTransformer because I > can control > > >the caching in an xsp. > > > > > >Anyway it isn't quite true that you can't do > "transformation" in an > > >xsp: I have SQL which is dynamically generated from an xslt > > >transformer which I then feed into my esql. I use the resolver to > > >grab the output of the transformation pipeline. > > > > > > > > Which is what I thought. There doesn't seem to be a use case that > > can't be acomplished one way or the other. > > Right. But it requires Java coding. The SQL Transformer can > be handled by people without Java skills. > > Per > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
