El vie, 31-03-2006 a las 11:27 +0200, Andreas Hartmann escribió: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > [...] > > >>> This is the side effect of the first observation that > >>> binary files are "transformed" into xml documents. > >> Really? I don't think it is a side effect, rather a separate problem. > > > > well, it is lying in > > Document destinationDocument = sourceDocument.getIdentityMap() > > .getAreaVersion(sourceDocument, destinationArea); > > ;) > > I'll take a look at it. > > >>> In another use case I have a resource type "xType" that aggregates x > >>> files to one document. > >> What do you mean with "files"? > >> Lenya doesn't support operations on files ... > >> The API provides functionality to handle documents. > > > > Yeah, *xml* documents! > > It should be able to handle arbitrary documents, not only XML. > > > Files like in any given content (binary > > including). Thereby a file = document and the API provides so far only > > functionality to handle xml documents. The is the root cause of so many > > problemes that occured lately. > > Yes, these issues have to be fixed. > > > >>> If I publish with this xType only 2 files are > >>> taken into account. Further if I upload a file of the xType resource > >>> type via webdav PUT, I would need to access the xType specific create > >>> methods > >> Yes, that sounds reasonable. > >> > >>> to as well create the x-2 other files that my xType needs. > >> We should discuss if we want to allow documents to consist of > >> multiple sources. > > > > I thought we already agreed on this. > > I can't remember this - would you mind pointing me to the thread?
There have been a couple of them e.g. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113655405500001&r=1&w=2 and the emerging threads around it. Anyway we may should call a vote on it. > I just can remember that we wanted to allow to assemble documents > from different other documents using XInclude or a similar concept. Well, I do not really see the differents. ;) > > >>> Further as soon as I want to edit e.g. a odt document with e.g. BXE it > >>> will request the binary document and I cannot edit it. > >> Regardless > >>> whether the odt is a zip of xml files and it is certainly possible to > >>> edit the main xml file of the odt if I could define a resource type > >>> specific "Editing" implementation. > >> Maybe we should add editing formats to the resource type declaration > >> as well: > >> > >> <resource-type name="odt" ...> > >> ... > >> <format name="edit-bxe" uri="..."/> > >> </resource-type> > >> > > > > sound reasonable. > > > >>> With the current architecture this seems not to be possible without a > >>> lot of hacks. > >>> > >>> The resource type needs to configure e.g. a Publisher similar to the > >>> creator: > >>> > >>> <publisher src="org.apache.lenya.cms.authoring.DefaultPublisher"/> > >> I'm not sure if this is the way to go. IMO resource types and > >> publishing should be orthogonal. Publishing is only about moving > >> documents from one area to another (and invoking some additional > >> tasks), it should work with all documents which can be handled > >> by Lenya without implementing custom publishing components. > >> > > > > Well like you said: > > "(and invoking some additional tasks)" which are resource type specific. > > Not necessarily. E.g., notification and static export are rather > publication specific. But they should be handled by the usecase anyway. Hmm. > > > How can the resource type define those? > > What resource-type specific tasks do you have in mind? Imaginge doco. Here I want to publish the live site with forrest and lenya. First I want the sources moved and then using forrestbor via ant to generate a static html site and publish it to my server. Lenyas publishing is rather limited in this regards and it would be nice to reuse exiting components like forrest for thus tasks. > I can imagine that there are such tasks, but to find out > the requirements it would be nice to have some examples. Multiple documents in a resource type. ;) You need to copy/publish x documents. > > > >>> which I think should apply for all "components" working on resource > >>> types: > >>> Creator > >>> Editor > >>> Indexer > >>> Publisher > >>> LinkRewriter > >>> .... > >> I'm not convinced that this is really useful, but I'm not yet sure. > >> I'll think about it and maybe come up with another proposal. > > > > lol > > > > I wish that we can work together on this as community and not each other > > on its own. Why do you want to come up with another one and not bring > > this proposal to a verdict? ;) > > Because I have the feeling that the problem is approached from > the wrong side. Well, then speak up and we need to find a way that fits. > But, like I already said, I'll think about it > first and *maybe* come up with another proposal. > hmm, would save me some time if you give me your "out-of-the-head" thought about an alternative approach. Like we see on this discussion, maybe we need first allow multiple sourced and binary documents and then we may have solved already the limitations that emerged this proposal. salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
