> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > In the interpreted sitemap engine, the <map:components> section is > > > handled as regular component manager configuration (i.e. a .xconf > > > file), so you can add any component you wish in it. > > Hm... I wasn't aware of this fact. But question is: is this a desired > location for component configurations? I would definitly say *no*! I was > so happy beeing now able to move the components section over into the > cocoon.xconf. SoC! Going back feels like... well, a step backwards ;) > > > I have got two questions... > > 1. Should this be implemented in the interpreted sitemap as well? > > As long as we have both we definitly should keep both in sync! > Users wouldn't be very happy about such little differences... > > > 2. Do we need separate user.xconf then, if you can do everything in the > > sitemap? > > I'd say *yes* because of SoC. The sitemap is for pipeline definitions not > for component configurations... at least that's what I think...
I see your point... ;) Then, third question: 3. Should we remove ability to define components in the sitemap, and provide ability to declare components in the separate user.conf file (optional, one per sitemap). Vadim > Cheers > -- > Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
