Reinhard Pötz pisze: > Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It's again me trying to understand current sitemap design. This time >> I wonder if it's intended that redirect-to/@uri is optional. I fail >> to see how implementation of redirect-to handles this case in any >> meaningful way. > > I haven't tried it now what happens if the there is no @uri attribute > but from reading the code some exception in the RedirectorComponent will > occur. It's probably better to throw a meaningful exception in the > RedirectorNode.
So do you agree with me changing both schema and implementation so @uri is required? >> The same concern (about too many of optional attributes) applies to >> call instruction. What about this? >> BTW. Was the idea of having extensible sitemap syntax discussed >> earlier? As it something new I wonder what was the main idea behind >> such a design decision. > > Why do you think that this is new? When Sylvain wrote the TreeProcessor, > one of his main goals was extensibility. Right. I wasn't active committer at that time so I can't remember original goals of TreeProcessor. Anyway, I wonder if this functionality was ever used in 2.x? I can't recall such a situation. If I understand it correctly having extensible sitemap language adds quite a lot to complexity of sitemap implementation. I would like to know what kind of issues extensibility of sitemap language solves. -- Best regards, Grzegorz Kossakowski
