On Apr 3, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Reinhard Poetz pisze:
Why do we have to replace the blockcontext: protocol at all?
Take a look at its current source code. There is no such a thing
like "blockcontext:" protocol implementation at the moment.
In my [RT] mail I explained how we could possibly to stop cheating
pretending there is a blockcontext protocol and
A:
replace it with blockcontext expression that would better reflect
current implementation.
B:
Another possibility (suggested by you) is to provide real
implementation of blockcontext: protocol and use blockcontext
protocol in base URLs for blocks. I cannot comment on this solution
because I haven't enough free time to check all implications.
Remember: you will put blockcontext into ServletContext that is
rather general interface. I don't say there is any problem, I'm only
saying I haven't checked if there is none.
I prefer (only for now, as a quick solution) first way because there
is not much room for discussion, brainstorming and general research
which is quite opposite to URL-em-them-all approach. I really would
like to fix SSF ASAP and let the discussion/research on URL go in
parallel.
I've read your RT and I agree with conclusion that approach taken
there - to convert String (blockcontext:) --> SourceResolver -->
Source --> and back into String (file:) - it definitely smells bad.
But, I don't think plugging dependency to expressions block (A above)
is the good idea. I'd rather prefer B: make blockcontext a regular
protocol, and treat context path parameter as regular source without
any special treatment. I'd expect any of supported source
implementations to work there, be it http, webdav, or xmldb, or even
blockcontext.
Vadim
