Quoting Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Giacomo Pati wrote: > > > > Quoting Gianugo Rabellino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>Also, what about having a list of changes that are in 2.1 only and > > > >>need/should be ported to the final release, run a vote against > them > > > (as > > > >>it was done before beta) and decide about them? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > As far as I can see, there should nothing more need a backport. We > did > > > so > > > > already with most of the required features. I know, you will say > now: > > > And > > > > what about the configurable SourceHandlers? > > > > Well, I'm +0 on this. > > > > > > > > > Gotcha :) Even if I'm basically +0 too: I have no intention to ask > for a > > > > > > backport of the XML:DB stuff in 2.0, so my code (and my ego ;P) is > not a > > > > > > concern. Actually I'm not even committing it because I want to keep > > > focus on the final release and after that start discussing about new > > > stuff. > > > > > > However this can be seen as a small API change, so I'm wondering if > it > > > could be the case to have it in place already in the release: I > think > > > that the Source abstraction is a great feature, but without a > > > configuration it might be hard to implement any other protocol (my > > > future plans are to include LDAP and IMAP as Sources), so probably > it > > > would be nice for end users to have such a possibility. > > > > This is what I have figured lately when talking with Stefano the > > other week. If > > you look at how many Generators we have you end up with only two > > important > > ones: > > > > FileGenerator > > ServerPagesGenerator > > > > All the other (DirectoryGenerator, RequestGenerator, ...) could be > easily > > realized by using XSP. We have put all specific handling of > > various sources into > > the Source abstration. So each data source you'd like to access > (file:, > > resource:, context:, cocoon:, ldap:, news:, imap:, pop:, xmldb:, > > etc.) could in > > fact be realized by a Source. > > > Hey, you stole my RT ;-). No, seriously, the Source abstraction is very > powerfull. A Source object can very easily convert it's data to XML. For > example, > the conversion from HTML to XHTML can be integrated into the Source > object > as > well. > > And (as I like FS a lot) why not having a DirectorySource and a > RequestSource etc, > so no real need for XSP anyway ;-).
We can show it one way or the other. I don't care. What I'd like to show is that you can build up your generators using XSP (DirectoryGenerator) or by building a custom Source (which is in fact a custom protocol) and use it at the src attribute to your FileGenerator or ServerPagesGenerator. Giacomo > > Carsten > > > Giacomo > > > > > > > > But I also have to understand what's going to happen with the > > > integration in Avalon of the Source stuff: if things are going to > change > > > > > > anyway (if the framework is moved under the Avalon umbrella and > possibly > > > > > > changed) then there might be no question for this anymore. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > > > -- > > > Gianugo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
