Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
<snip/>
If relevant, I've started extending the MountTableMatcher to include the code from the host selector. This means that you can set up virtual hosts in the matchtable.xml file, and have sitemaps mounted based upon hostname.
Mmmh... is it good to mix prefix-based and host-based mounts in a single matcher?
Don't know/don't mind. I'd be happy to have a HostTableMatcher that extends/works with the MountTableMatcher. My desire/need is to see a system that enables me to do host based matching. I could happily have:
<map:match type="host-table">
.....
</map:match>
<map:match type="mount-table">
....
</map:match>
Thus achieving the same effect, and perhaps more cleanly.
Thoughts? In which case, should the MountTableMatcher be PrefixTableMatcher? Or PrefixMountTableMatcher and HostMountTableMatcher? Hmm.
Yeah, sounds better. They can share some code, but IMO should not be mixed in a single class (see also my answer to Unico).
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
