On 26.May.2002 -- 01:35 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Christian Haul wrote:
> >On 24.May.2002 -- 04:00 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> >>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.
Almost done. It causes some larger modifications to the new
DatabaseActions since they cannot inherit the central setColumn method
anymore.
> >Possible. One could even create a (meta) module that accesses a
> >source, then :-) Whoa, that would be a mind-boggling complicated data
> >flow %-]
> >
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my opinion is that modules have nothing to
> do with sources. Sources give access to a data stream (be it binary or
> SAX events) while modules give access to some simple values. The
> meta-module you're talking about would be very confusing.
My statement is misleading in a number of ways. I made it because I
thought that the resolver is included in the objectModel which seems
not to be the case.
Usually I use the term "meta module" for modules that work on data
obtained from other modules. Currently, a message digest meta module
and a collection meta module exist. These meta modules are very useful
when inserting complex data types into a database e.g. when
constructing a (java) collection from a number of request parameters.
Speaking of complex data types and databases, there are some reasons
why one would like to treat a source like a simple value. This would
enable us to insert an XML document created by another pipeline into a
database or attach it to an email.
But yes, modules should only be used to access simple values. That's
what they were made for.
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]
