Peter Hunsberger napisał(a): > > The question is whether this convention is generally usable? For me, > I can tell you that I would probably not use it, I already have other > conventions in place for naming and finding resources that I don't > want to change. No point in having a convention if it isn't generally > usable. Guess I need to hear if other people would find this > generally usable...
I think that you and me are not good examples of the person for whom this functionality is going to be useful as we are really experienced Cocoon-hackers. You have your own convention, I can have my own and we can live it that happily. I think that you would agree that some convention is really needed. What I want to do is to help Cocoon newbies to start actual playing with Cocoon (instead of reading poor documentation) as quickly as possible. What I think is little funny that we discuss so extensively so little, small change that is not going to harm anyone experienced with Cocoon... > I get all that, and that's the point: you already have to configure > the block when you create it and you have to know the name of the > resource at the time you use it. So for a resource that now falls > into the general "external" URI name space you still have to know what > it is named. What _really_ is the difference whether the user of a > resource has to specify: > > external/foo.js > > or something like: > > servlet:bar:/foo.js The first one is actually equal to the: servlet:/external/foo.js So first path is relative, the second absolute. > > If I'm a front end developer I just consider "servlet:bar" part of the > way I name foo and go on with my business. > > Which raises the question; what do you plan to do if two or more > blocks have a resource with the same name in their "external" > directory? Really nothing... If blockA has external/foo.js and blockB has external/foo.js there is no trouble in such a case. From the blockC perspective, first resource is available under servlet:blockA:/external/foo.js and the second under servlet:blockB:/external/foo.js. This are two absolutely different paths. No option for name clashes... (I'm really running out of ideas how to explain this) > > Sure, and I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm just not sure it's > useful enough to try and define it formally. No point in defining a > convention if no one is going to use it.... > I agree. Most Cocoon developers won't use it, but there are (hopefully) folks using Cocoon who are not Cocoon developers/hardcore hackers... -- Grzegorz Kossakowski
