On 12 Jan 2010, at 17:40, Lin Sun wrote:
Hi Valentin,
I like the 3rd option too. Having the webbundle url handler is an
important part of the RFC 66 specification, since we already have it
in contrib, it is great to have it moved like you decided.
I have one question below.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Valentin Mahrwald
<[email protected]> wrote:
My personal preference would be the third choice, keeping a minimum
of
separation without unnecessary bundle. Also, I think the
BundleConverter
interface is the more general one. However, that choice would mean
the
webbundle handler bundle would have imports from application API.
I didn't quite understand why the 3rd choice would require the web
bundle handler bundle have imports from Application API. I think it
would be the other way around.
Lin
That's only too true. What I thought actually thought about when I
wrote it was to implement the webbundle handler through an extension
to the BundleConverter. (So option 2)
But actually since then I must confess it looks more natural to do it
the other way around. So the WabConverter service would be a new
export from a new RFC 66 bundle that is driven by the application
converter implementation, which would add functionality such as
reading out the context root from an application.xml if present.
Sounds about right?
