Grzegorz Kossakowski schrieb: > Yes, but I was wondering if we couldn't put following pipeline in > samples-style-default's sitemap: > <map:match pattern="service/simple-samples2html"> > <map:generate src="servlet-consumer:"/> > <map:transform src="stylesheets/system/xml2html.xslt"/> > <map:transform type="servletLinkRewriter" /> > <map:serialize type="html"/> > </map:match> > > and for example, in imageop's sitemap instead of: > <map:match pattern=""> > <map:generate src="samples.xml"/> > <map:transform > src="servlet:style-default:/common/style/xsl/html/simple-samples2html.xsl" > /> > <map:transform type="servletLinkRewriter" /> > <map:serialize/> > </map:match> > > we could have: > <map:match pattern=""> > <map:generate src="samples.xml"/> > <map:serialize type="servletService"> > <map:parameter name="service" > value="servlet:style-default:/service/simple-samples2html"/> > </map:serialize> > </map:match> >
I haven't knew this construct of serializer and parameter. > This way, we could use _service_ to style samples and the same way get > more flexibility because we could change the service in one place in > any way we like (e.g. add more transformers if needed). > I wonder if we really need this, and if it's a Flexibility Syndrome. It's true, we would have more flexibility, but is it still understandable for common users? The more flexibility we get the more complex a part of the pipeline will be to read. Do we really want to 'misuse' the serializer as a kind of merged thing of transformer and serializer in one? Even if we'd get more flexibility I prefer the current way. > > WDYT?
