On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 15:41 Europe/Rome, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
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.
ahhhhh, yeah, rings a bell... I remember that I thought about fragmented resources and it was that that triggered my FS alarm. I always knew that views were virtual serializers, but the specific semantics was introduced to make it easier to understand (views are heard enough to understand already).
But anyway, no excuse, I was probably wrong at that time not to consider this further. Or, maybe not: we needed more time to see if it really made sense to add that complexity.
I will be more stubborn next time. ;-)
Please do :-)
Pluggable Request Factories ---------------------------
2. Are you sure that adapting the request is enough?
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".
Damn, great point.
So, back one step: could "adapt-environment" help? or is "environment" not good enough for people to understand?
What do others think?
Mmmh... Up to now, the environment is mostly non visible to regular components (i.e. out of the sitemap/pipeline machinery). Exposing it may lead to many abuses and misuses.
I would go back only a half-step : "adapt-object-model" sounds better as it provides all that it needed for Gianugo's use cases, and avoids messing up the environment.
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
