Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 18:13 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 09:52 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: thorsten
Date: Thu Aug 18 17:44:00 2005
New Revision: 233401
...
Added:
forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/src/java/org/apache/forrest/plugin/internal/view/acting/FallbackResolverAction.java
Does this fallback resolver work with the locationmap?
What do you mean?
Can I use, for example {lm:{1}} as a URI.
What does this do that the locationmap does not do?
It computes a dynamic path for fallback file.
...
The locationmap needs to be defined and edited. All fallbacks that you
want to use, you have to define before, not very suitable for a high
dynamic environment like views.
Well something must be telling the fallback where to look. If you change
the defaults that file must be edited too. So there is no difference here.
I do not see how the locationmap can help me with that and I see one big
differents:
<match pattern="rewriteDemo/**">
<select>
<location src="http://www.burrokeet.org/{1}.fv"; />
<!--How can you have dir fallbacks without defining the dir structure
here?-->
<location src="http://www.burrokeet.org/{dir}{1}.fv"; />
<location src="http://www.burrokeet.org/default.fv"; />
</select>
</match>
Due to the fact that it is a "simple" matcher/select/location mechanism
I cannot compute something like the fallback dir view like the action is
doing. If I can then please show me an example. Like I see it I need to
define all possible locations in a lm.
I think Tims response provides an example, I'm replying in that part of
the thread.
That is not suitable for views because an user cannot define *all*
possible locations. That would mean (s)he has to define all
subdirectories of h(er)is site and their fallback in the lm. ...or do I
miss something about the locationmap?
There is now the potential for a default forrest locatonmap which will
import the user locationmap. Therefore Forrest defines the defaults and
the user can define any extra. In other words it is the same as in your
fallback resolver in which the defaults are defined in the resolver itself.
See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-576 and notice it is Tim
who got this to work so it may be better to have is opinion.
see above, you end up defining all fallbacks there.
If I understand you the functionality is the same, and appears to be
more flexible in the locationmap (although I'm in a noisy net cafe and
cannot concentrate fully). Can we stick to just one solution?
Yes, why not, but the locationmap is not a solution to my problem right
now, that is how I personally see it. If you can provide an example how
the lm is solving the fallback mechanism for views without defining all
the fallbacks in the lm then I will be more then happy to use it.
Do you meand "the user defining all the fallbacks"? in the sense of
Forrest defining some locations and the user (optionally) defining some.
If so I address this above, otherwise I don't understand your point,
please expand.
Ross
