On 14.Feb.2002 -- 04:27 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> > > From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > > > Thus I propose to have
> > > >
> > > > <map:pipeline-fragments>
> > > > <map:pipeline-fragment name="action-set-foo">
> > > > <!-- anything that is allowed to be in a pipeline -->
> > > > </map:pipeline-fragment>
> > > > <!-- more fragments -->
> > > > </map:pipeline-fragments>
> > > >
> > > > with
> > > >
> > > > <map:match ....>
> > > > <!-- ... -->
> > > > <map:use-fragment name="action-set-foo"/>
> > > > <!-- ... -->
> > > > </map:match>
> > >
> > > Indeed this would be cool. Right now we are using XML entities for
> > that.
> > > Auuuah - ugly ;)
> >
> > To me this looks very familiar... It reminds me of resources. Shouldn't
> > be then resources tinkered with instead of adding the whole new concept
> > of fragments?
>
> True!
Indeed, both are very similar. My reasoning was that it is easier to
introduce something new than to change behaviour in an unexpected
way. If resources suddenly do return how many sitemaps would be
broken? If a return element is introduced, would it be more irritating
and more difficult to implement? I'm not sure about this.
Besides "resource" describes the current design very good. A resource
is something complete, a new destination. A fragment, however,
explicitly says "I'm incomplete".
Chris.
--
C h r i s t i a n H a u l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837 7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
