> I would *strongly* suggest you to write a new reader. > > I totally understand that tweaking the sitemap sounds 'easier' because > the try/fail cycle is *much* faster now, but I tend to believe that > until we have the flowmap in place, we should avoid to add anymore > dynamism to the sitemap, or people will start to use it and come up with > even more things to deprecate or keep to maintain forever. > > Hope you get my point.
I'll accept the point, but think that soon we're going to have a huge, messy, undocumented, proliferation of customized generators, actions, etc. For example: - FileExistsAction - FileNotExistsAction - PerlStyleFileTestAction - GrepAction - UnzipAction - GetUploadedFilenameAction - UploadedFileGenerator - UnzipUploadedFileGenerator - FallbackFileGenerator - FallbackTraxTransformer Maybe with Cocoon Blocks, and something like CPAN, this would be manageable. As is stands though, everyone will have to be a Java developer (OK, technically you could be an ECMAScript or Python developer) if they want to do things like this. Does this unduly restrict our userbase? I agree with the flexibility syndrome concerns, but there needs to be a happy medium between "everyone write a custom generator" and "everyone type volumes into the sitemap manually". Sorry to trip your alarm so strongly. Jason Foster --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
