Reinhard Pötz wrote: > I would only make the caching file generator available to the sitemap. > If you put it into a caching pipeline, its caching interfaces will be > regarded, if it is used in a noncaching pipeline, the > CachingPipelineComponent interface will be disregarded. Hmm, yes, sounds much simpler :)
> > I'm not sure if it is a good idea to introduce aspect orientation at > this level which adds a further level of complexity. > > I also fear that this will not be a solution that works for every > scenario and if it's only one component that can't be cached > transparently by AO mechanisms we get a problem where to put it because > we wouldn't want to introduce a dependency on the caching module. Hmm, I don't meant real aop - I haven't looked into the caching pipeline impl, but I guess it checks each component if it implements the caching pipeline component interface. If the component does not implement it, the caching pipeline could try this default behaviour. Without thinking this through, I see two downsides: the cache key might contain stuff which is not required (this should be neglectable). The pipeline ends up to be always cacheable, regardless if the components itself support caching - this might be not the desired effect - I don't know :) > If we want to clean up the cocoon-pipeline module, it's probably a > better idea to create a 'cocoon-sax' module and we move all SAX related > classes there. Then 'cocoon-pipeline' contains the core interfaces and > the pipeline implementations (incl. caching). I think we should do both :) Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
