> From: Michael Melhem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 01:03:22PM +0100, Stuart Roebuck wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Michael Melhem wrote: > > > > >Hi everyone, > > > > > >I trust you all had a good easter break :-) > > > > > >This is a propasal for the introduction of implicit precondition > > >checking > > >in matchers. Please refer to Bug 7713 for more information!! > > >You can find the patch for this proposal as a part of Bug 7713. > > > > > >Here I outline some of the reasoning for this proposal... > > > > > >While writing a large c2 based application we have come to the > > >conclusion that matchers with built-in *implicit* checks would be > > >desirable. > > > > > >For Example, instead of using a "valid session checker action" > > >in *every* single pipeline in the sitemap to secure against clients > > >who do not have sessions, we simply configure a matcher with a > > >"session-exists precondition". That way, we simplify sitemap pipelines, > > >which we find are already too large and complex. > > > > > >There are several advantages with implicit matcher checking including, > > >simplified sitemaps, scalablity, easier development with developers > > >not having to remember to always include certian actions, hiding of > > >unnecessary and repetitive information, etc > > > > > >Of course precondition matchers are not useful in every situation, > > >but are of best advantage when ones finds themselves using the > > >same general actions in a lot of the sitemap pipelines. > > > > > >Any comments? > > > > From your description it sounds like existing facility for embedding > > match statements might do the trick: > > > > <map:match pattern="*"> > > <map:act type="let-the-person-in"> > > > > <map:match pattern="match1"> > > ... > > </map:match> > > > > <map:match pattern="match2"> > > ... > > </map:match> > > > > ... > > </map:act> > > </map:match> > > > > Stuart. > > Hi stuart, > > Thanks for your input. > > Yes, you are correct, one could *explicitly* use actions and > embedded matchers to do the same thing. > > However when the "map:act type=let-the-person-in" is generic, say > "let-the-person-in-if-they-have-a-session", then it would seem to me, to > make more sense for that check to be done implicitly as part of the > match. > > Otherwise you could clutter your sitemap with > <map:act type=let-the-person-in> in almost every pipeline.
Michael, Have you considered using just one pipeline? Or two (and no more than two)? > This is not a good thing, especially if you have lots of complex pipelines. Here I fail to see how this is much simpler than using action. Why not just: ... <map:act type="let-person-in-if-they-have-session"> > <map:match pattern="URI1*"> > ... > </map:match> > > <map:match pattern="URI2*"> > ... > </map:match> > > ... </map:act> Vadim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
