I apologize up front for being a pest while you guys are prepping for
the release but...

I started my queries into sitemaps with the cocoon:/ && cocoon://
protocols but now I'm starting to wonder whether we have other sitemap
related issues too.  (Not issues in the sense of bugs, but issues in
the sense of overly verbose code).

Currently, in most, but not all of the subsitemaps there are duplicate
transformer, generator, serializer declarations.  Because the parent
sitemap components are available to the subsitemap components I don't
get why their sprinkled so liberally across subsitemaps.  I think
trimming the fat from subsitemaps would at least make the subsitemaps
more readable.  I don't immediately see as what the performance
impacts would be because I don't know if component instances are
created on demand or on startup.  If it's the former, then the cost of
instance creation vs. the costs of the parent lookup seem like they
would at least offset one another.

Anyone know why this is the way it is?  Since the duplication is
consistent it does make me question whether I've missed something but
preliminary testing has not uncovered anything -- of course my current
testing wouldn't uncover any performance issues if that happens to be
the rationale.   Is this just standard in Cocoon-based apps?

I've added some of the basis for my understanding below.

Thanks,
--tim

http://cocoon.apache.org/2.1/userdocs/concepts/sitemap.html
" Sitemap components (generators, transformers, etc.) in a sitemap are
accessible from a sub-sitemap by their names. This is due to the fact
that each sitemap has its own SitemapComponentManager and they are
arranged in the same hierarchical structure as the sitemaps are and
thus knows which are their parent SitemapComponentManager and can ask
it for a SitemapComponent it doesn't know about."

j.o.a.c.components\CocoonComponentManager.lookup()

forrest.xmap (among others)
An example can be seen by ripping out the entire <map:transformers
section from forrest.xmap. build cleanly; forrest run and all is well.

Reply via email to