On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > From: giacomo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, DZIEMBOWSKI,KINGA (HP-NewJersey,ex2) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So, Vadim, why are they there? > > > > > > > > To show off the possibility ;) > > > > There was concern raised: lots of "org.apache.cocoon....." in > > > > sitemap.xmap scares newbies away, and I kind of agree with this > > > > statement (remembering these days when had a look at (IIRC) > Jetspeed > > > > configuration) > > > > > > > > So we need to come to some conclusion on this and (may be) > > > > move most of > > > > the standard components into cocoon.xconf. This will allow us to > have > > > > clean sitemap.xmap. > > > > > > > > Vadim > > > > > > I do prefer to register Adapter components in the cocoon.xconf. The > Adapter > > > components are not part of the pipeline definition and it is better > to > > > register them in cocoon.xconf rather than in sitemap. > > > Please somebody confirm that components registered in the > cocoon.xconf got > > > this same "treatment" as those from sitemap. Configuration etc. > > > > Yes, they got configurations, but they will not be setup like sitemap > > component (means no objectModel, Resolver, etc.). > > They will be. When looked up by sitemap. Otherwise, how it works now?
Yes, when they are handeled by the sitemap, but usually components are looked up by a ECM which does the regular Avalon initialisation sequence (and thus no setup with objectModel etc.). That's what I was talking about when I said moving the Adaptor to cocoon.xconf as normal Avalon components. Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
