On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 20:15 Europe/Rome, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Looks like I missed some serious fun during these vacations... time to catch up!
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Virtual Pipeline Components ---------------------------
Love the idea. Even because it was me suggesting something like that a couple of years ago and being blamed of FS... ;-)
Really? any pointer? (I'm not being sarcastic, but curious... if I judged FS something that I later ended up proposing, there is something wrong in my FS meter ;-)
Sorry, no pointers, just witnesses if they remind the live discussion who took place one day in Bibop.:-) We were still using the compiled sitemap and I was suggesting how components could have been aggregated (G-T* / T* /T*-S) as "macros" to be unrolled by XSLT. You came up with FS bells and problems with parameter resolving, so the discussion was kinda over. I will be more stubborn next time. ;-)
2. Are you sure that adapting the request is enough?Pluggable Request Factories ---------------------------
I couldn't come up with anything that required more than that.
I'd say that the different use cases you're pointing out require a bit more then just the request object: I'd say that the whole environment might need a particular treatment in most cases.
Why so, can you elaborate? maybe with a specific example? scenarios help the design.
You might need to have access to the response too. In WebDAV world, as an example, you need to set a whole bunch of headers (Allow:, DAV:, MS-Author-Via - yuck - and more), and a DASL component needs to specify the search vocabularies supported. True, you can do it by hand, but it would be much better if such manipulation could be done by a "request-factory".
Ciao,
-- Gianugo Rabellino Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
