On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 07:19 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > In addition to that, it seems to me wrong to write a script which > creates an output (being that html or json or whatever) and then you > need an additional mechanism to modify this output. Wouldn't it be > much > better to create the correct output in the first place? > > So I think there are three places where you potentially do the > modifications: > 1. You modify your model which is the input to your script > 2. You do it in a script > 3. You reparse the output of your script and then modify it > > Maybe there are still use cases for 3 and then the rewriter is a > good > tool for it. But I sincerely hope that 95% of the use cases can > already > be solved with 1 or 2 - and thats were we should focus on.
+1 to this and also to Konrad's point of listing use cases for the rewriter. I like the rewriter since it is elegantly decoupled from other parts of the request handling process, but at the same time parsing the whole HTML response is heavyweight and IMO should be done only in specific circumstances. ----- Wild idea: would it be possible to provide an optional extension point for scripting engines where they could signal that a link is output? Then we would have a central place for handling link rewriting. I guess for HTL this would not be too hard, and if we cover JSP, HTL and maybe Freemarker/Tyhmeleaf this will be useful enough so that we can recommend using this instead of the more heavy-weight rewriter. Thoughts? Robert
