On 24.May.2002 -- 04:00 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Now what about allowing the use of InputModules in sitemap variable
> substitution ? For this, we need to extend the variable naming scheme :
> if a variable name contains a colon (':'), the string before the colon
> identifies an InputModule, and the string after the colon identifies an
> attribute name for the InputModule (see InputModule.getAttribute())
It sounds like a cool idea, but the syntax would suggest that any
source could be used. Indeed, modules are related to sources but offer
a very different API and I like to think of them being "lightweight"
sources. I don't think it would make sense to merge them for example.
Apart from that, yes, I think it would be cool.
> Chris, what about passing the full object model instead of just the
> Request to {Input, Output}Modules ? This would allow a wider range of
> implementations.
Possible. One could even create a (meta) module that accesses a
source, then :-) Whoa, that would be a mind-boggling complicated data
flow %-]
It does work to get more attention to your stuff moving it to
trunk. Cool. :-)
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]
