Tim Williams wrote:
> On 9/4/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 04:51 +0200, Tim Williams (JIRA) wrote:
>>
>>> [
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-662?page=comments#action_12322601 ]
>>>
>>>Tim Williams commented on FOR-662:
>>>----------------------------------
>>>
>>>A small portion of this remains unfortunately. The current solution
doesn't work for the plugin docs. I think this source stuff needs some
re-thinking unforunately.
>>
>>"The current solution doesn't work for the plugin docs."
>>
>>What do mean with that? Maybe the source should be resolved with the
>>mounting capability of the lm?
>
>
> Actually, you had just closed the issue and I commented that it's not
> totally resolved because our combined patches didn't work for
> pluginDocs since there is a separate sitemap entry for them. I've
> since patched that too. I don't immediately see how the locationmap
> stuff will fit here, my comment about it needing some re-thinking is
> that these requests have to be modified per match and don't "grow"
> very well -- all unique matches need to account for these different
> formats (e.g. pluginDocs).
Which part are you saying needs rethinking, I'm confused. There are two
parts of the URI that we are fixing, the first is the "extensions" the
second is the path to the file.
The extensions (i.e. *.source.xml) is in line with the proopsal we
discussed a long time ago and recently resurfaced in
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112550194621801&w=2 Do you
see a problem with that proposal?
The part about fixed paths in URI's (i.e. "pluginDocs/**") is a
recognised problem that needs addressing.
I believe the issue that arose because of the addition of the
*.source.xml matchers is a result of the fixing og the path part of the
URL, rather than a problem of the "extension" part.
> I still think there might be room for an
> enhanced Cocoon View in here - reacting to the "hint" in
> fname.hint.xml instead of the current request parameter. I don't know
> though...
If you can make Cocoon views work without the request parameter then
this would work. Otherwise, it will be impossible to create a static
site beause request parameters add an '?' to the URL which is not legal
in a filename on disk. Unless you solve that problem you are on to a
loser (I've tried it). 'm not saying it won't work, I'm saying there is
a problem that needs to be addressed, I hope identifying the problem
will save you some time in experimentation ;-)
Ross
