----- Original Message ----- From: "Schnitzer, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:04 PM Subject: RE: Content-type and transforms (was RE: [Mav-user] [PROPOSAL] Release v2.2.0 of Maverick)
>> From: jim moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> The nice about moving this functionality into the framework as >opposed >to >> the individual transforms is that it gives some regularity--it is very >> clear >> when looking at the maverick.xml file what the output of each >transform is >> if necessary (no need to look at source code). Also, all existing >> transforms >> and views would work immediately without modification. >It would be nice to be able to fix this so that everything works >properly even if users don't specify a content-type for every step >(something I doubt that most users will do consistently). The only >downside is the API change, right? Yes I agree with this. >All of the existing transform types in CVS right now extend >AbstractTransformStep. All I have to do is add the dummy >setContentType() method to AbstractTransformStep in the core and it will >be unnecessary to modify any of the optional packages. Sound better? >:-) Yes, I think this handles most of my concerns over breaking the api, though we might also need to do something to views as well. I think this discussion originally started over Mike's concern over setting the content-type when maxTransforms=0 (ie, a view, not a transform). >I like this approach - it enables SAX-generating steps to specify >content-type just like text-generating steps (which can specify the >content-type on the HttpServletRequest). Agreed. I'm not going to harp on it too much more, but even with the above changes to the api (which I am now in favor of), I still sort of feel like the optional content-type attribute on views and transforms would be a nice option to offer. If present, it would basically override whatever the transform or view itself did. But I'm not going to press it too much more. If you feel like its overkill or confusing then I'll go along with your judgement. --jim ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en [INVALID FOOTER] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en [INVALID FOOTER]
