is this kosher?
I've written this HTTPTransformer which takes some simple XML containing link information (href, method) and returns either html (run through JTidy), xml (from the web server), or xml containing the location of the file that was downloaded (if type wasn't text/html* or text/xml*). Now, I'd like to be able to return the HTTP response code in a way that would let a selector decide what to do next. Would it be taboo to add a parameter to those passed in via the setup() method on AbstractSAXTransformer? Would that parameter even become available, or is this one just a private copy? I was thinking I'd also write a simple selector (like the ParameterSelector) which would take a list of strings to be tested (i.e. test=one|two|three|four). That way, I can check for a bunch of return codes. The other option is to write a selector that understands some better expressions like test=param500 param =400. Please tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, or of someone has already implemented something like I'm talking about. I do have the HTTPTransformer working, I just need to address the return code issue. I'd prefer to have the sitemap define the action based on result code. Thanks, David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is this kosher?
Couple of thoughts here. First, if you are suggesting adding an extra parameter to the signature call of the setup method, that won't work. I don't think that is what you are asking, but I'd thought I'd address it anyway. Second, I think there is a slightly different way to go about doing this. Have your HTTPTransformer dump the response code and any other relevant data into an XML structure, and put this structure BOTH in the pipeline and in the session. (You could also just use a simple session attribute like HTTPTransformer-RESPONSE-CODE) This lets users of your HTTPTransformer either use another transformer to deal with the response codes, or use actions,selectors, etc to deal with the response, as they all have access to the session. I am defintely more partial to actions, as they can do all the work of a selector and more. I don't know if it is possible or not, but your HTTPTransformer could also be rewritten as an action, which would let it do it's work and return the response code all in one shot. If all your HTTPTransformer takes in is an href and a method, this wouldn't be a huge deal. Irv David Kavanagh wrote: I've written this HTTPTransformer which takes some simple XML containing link information (href, method) and returns either html (run through JTidy), xml (from the web server), or xml containing the location of the file that was downloaded (if type wasn't text/html* or text/xml*). Now, I'd like to be able to return the HTTP response code in a way that would let a selector decide what to do next. Would it be taboo to add a parameter to those passed in via the setup() method on AbstractSAXTransformer? Would that parameter even become available, or is this one just a private copy? I was thinking I'd also write a simple selector (like the ParameterSelector) which would take a list of strings to be tested (i.e. test=one|two|three|four). That way, I can check for a bunch of return codes. The other option is to write a selector that understands some better expressions like test=param500 param =400. Please tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, or of someone has already implemented something like I'm talking about. I do have the HTTPTransformer working, I just need to address the return code issue. I'd prefer to have the sitemap define the action based on result code. Thanks, David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is this kosher?
You should really be asking this kind of question on the cocoon-dev list, I'd say. Cheers! Con -Original Message- From: David Kavanagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've written this HTTPTransformer which takes some simple XML snip/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is this kosher?
Well, maybe.. Just as a matter of protocol, isn't adding a new component something a cocoon user would do? I'm not really messing with cocoon internals. I'm just implementing published interfaces. Anyone? David Conal Tuohy wrote: You should really be asking this kind of question on the cocoon-dev list, I'd say. Cheers! Con -Original Message- From: David Kavanagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I've written this HTTPTransformer which takes some simple XML snip/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is this kosher?
-Original Message- From: David Kavanagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, maybe.. Just as a matter of protocol, isn't adding a new component something a cocoon user would do? I'm not really messing with cocoon internals. I'm just implementing published interfaces. except didn't you ask about passing an extra parameter to a method in one of these interfaces? I think your problem/question is architectural, and that's why I think cocoon-dev would be better. Con - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is this kosher?
I think people misunderstood something I said. One parameter to the setup() method in AbstractSAXTransformer is of type Parameters. I was asking if this is considered mutable. Should I be able to modify the Parameters object (by adding another key/value)? Is it OK to pass values forward in the pipline by this method? Irv suggested using the session object which I'll also go along with. I'm just wondering what is the accepted mechanism. David Conal Tuohy wrote: -Original Message- From: David Kavanagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well, maybe.. Just as a matter of protocol, isn't adding a new component something a cocoon user would do? I'm not really messing with cocoon internals. I'm just implementing published interfaces. except didn't you ask about passing an extra parameter to a method in one of these interfaces? I think your problem/question is architectural, and that's why I think cocoon-dev would be better. Con - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is this kosher?
I'm thinking that you can't do you would like to do because as I understand it, the pipeline is assembled before generation starts. You're talking about putting a pipeline together based on something that happens in the generation component. Cart before the horse. Closing the barn door after . . . oh never mind. Perhaps you can pass the response code as an attribute in your SAX events and do your conditional processing in the transformer. Charles David Kavanagh wrote: I think people misunderstood something I said. One parameter to the setup() method in AbstractSAXTransformer is of type Parameters. I was asking if this is considered mutable. Should I be able to modify the Parameters object (by adding another key/value)? Is it OK to pass values forward in the pipline by this method? Irv suggested using the session object which I'll also go along with. I'm just wondering what is the accepted mechanism. David Conal Tuohy wrote: -Original Message- From: David Kavanagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, maybe.. Just as a matter of protocol, isn't adding a new component something a cocoon user would do? I'm not really messing with cocoon internals. I'm just implementing published interfaces. except didn't you ask about passing an extra parameter to a method in one of these interfaces? I think your problem/question is architectural, and that's why I think cocoon-dev would be better. Con - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]