Yes it's quite odd. And to me it sounds like a bigger hack than passing an OutputStream. Source has a getInputStream() and represents a "source of data" according to its documentation. It doesn't even have getOutputStream().
Regards, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Polishing the flow contracts "Upayavira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> var source = cocoon.componentManager.get( >> Packages.org.apache.excalibur.source.WriteableSource.ROLE + >> "/file >> ); >> source.setDest("whatever"); >> cocoon.process("whatever",source); > > FWIW, that fits nicely with what I'm thinking of doing on the CLI. I plan to > make it > write to sources rather than files, and a cocoon.process("some-uri", source) > would > work well. > > More on my ideas soon. > > On the subject of the flow, presumably you could expose the source resolver, > so that > you could write the above with something like: > > cocoon.process("whatever", resolver.getSource("file://blah")); It's quite odd to "write" to a "source", but well, better than using LiveConnect. Thinking out loud... Should the "resolver" then be another read-only attribute of the script (instead of passing through the component manager?) Pier
