Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Mattam wrote: > > > > Ivelin Ivanov [Sun, 09 Jun 2002 11:22:07 -0500]: > > > > | > > | Two almost identical transformers are confusing me. > > | What is the difference between the two? > > | Should one be deprecated? > > | > > | I'd vote for the one which implements the W3C XInclude spec closest. > > | Maybe it should take the best of the other one. > > | > > > > CInclude allows cocoon:/ protocol, and XInclude tends to be a > strict implementation of the standard. Maybe keeping only > XInclude while allowing the cocoon:/ protocol (with a switch?) > would be the better. > > I agree, having both is highly confusing. Moreover, I think that we > should *not* be using the XInclude namespace on the server side because > we could get collisions in the future for browsers implementing XInclude > on the client side. > In some cases this is true, but not in all. Imagine, fetching a distant XML document containing xinclude commands. For processing it you need these extra pieces of information, so you have to include the referenced documents and therefore you need a xinclude transformer in some cases.
> For example, suppose you have something like this > > <blah> > <include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/xinclude/2000"; src="blah.inc"/> > <include xmlns="http://apache.org/cocoon/include"; src="blah.inc"/> > </blah> > > the first tag should *not* be processed by Cocoon, even by an > 'including' transformer. > > So, IMO, the best long term solution would be: > > 1) deprecate both XIncludeTransformer and CIncludeTransformer > 2) change CIncludeTransformer to IncludeTransformer > 3) make IncludeTransformer work just on a cocoon-specific namespace > > what do you think? > Again, I think XIncludeTransformer makes sense. And we still have the third include transformer, the session transformer which use is more verbose but therefore more flexible. Example: <session:include xmlns:session="http://cocoon.apache.org/session/1.0";> <session:connection> <session:target>http://www.xml.com/cocoon.xml</session:target> <session:config> <session:param> <session:name>METHOD</session:name> <session:value>POST</session:value> </session:param> </session:config> <session:params> <session:param> <session:name>user</session:name> <session:value>xyz</session:value> </session:param> </session:params> </session:connection> </session:include> As you can see by this example, you can parameterize the connection (for example setting the HTTP method to POST) and you can simply add parameters (for example the user=xyz). I admit that this is rather verbose, but it is very usefull, especially setting the method and the simple handling of additional parameters is a *must have*. So I would suggest that we deprecate the cincludetransforer and use the above functionality for a new include transformer (not necessarily the syntax and names, but the functionality). What do you think? Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
