Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le Jeudi, 1 jan 1970, à 13:40 Europe/Zurich, Stefano Mazzocchi a écrit :
...We could use the same syntax for the so called interal pipelines
<map:pipeline modifier="private"> [...]
We could use two different component managers for each sitemap to manage
these components, this should make the lookup easier.
I like this as well. internal-only="true" sounds hacky.
+1, but someone mentioned using
access="private"
instead, which is clearer. "modifier" does not convey the exact meaning.
I like access="private" and access="public".
- Which is the default if none is specified? (public)
Hmmm, on second thought,
uri access : @internal-only block access : @access
are these two orthoganal concepts named deceptively in the case of pipelines? @access is not meant to imply whether a pipeline can be accessed but whether it can be extended or used outside the block.
I think your analysis is right: @internal-only is related to the origin of the request, while @access is about inter-block relations. It may make sense to have a pipeline with internal-only="true" and access="public", meaning it's not visible from the non-Cocoon world (i.e. only through "cocoon:" requests), but that other blocks can use it.
If we never envision anything other than private/public would something like block-private="true" convey more meaning? block-access="private" might do the same but leave freedom for other than private/public.
Blocks can be extended, and so having "protected" along with "public" and "private" may be needed. I don't see a need for "package" visibility, though.
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
