Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Sab, 9 de Abril de 2005, 14:27, Jochen Kuhnle dijo:
Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09.04.2005 20:51:41:
In other words, should it be:
<map:mount src="foo/bar/" context="baz"/> and <map:sitemap>
or <map:mount src="foo/bar/"/> and <map:sitemap context="baz"/>
My feeling favors the second form, as allowing to specify the context
externally means that understanding what a sitemap does depends on the
mount statement.
Agreed, the second form is easier to understand. The first one was just easier to implement (at least for me), since MountNode.invoke already resolves the sitemap context. And this was the point where cocoon went into endless recursion...
On the other hand, the first form offers one additional feature: Mounting the same sitemap twice with different contexts. I just don't know yet if this is a good idea...
I see this as a good idea. I have a lot of literally equals sitemaps that
with something like that I can get rid of them by just defining his
context.
What do you mean by "literally equals"?
Do they differ because:
- there is a a slight difference in what they should do (in that case what about pass-through mounts?)
- or because they provide the same pipelines but operate on different data?
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
