<snip/> > > >2) I think it is more natural if a sub sitemap is invoked that it is > > > the sole responsibility of this sub sitemap to process the request. > > > > That's true if you consider each subsitemap to be a fully autonomous > > subapplication, but not if you consider the top-level sitemap to be a > > sort of container providing global services to subsitemaps. > > > > Considering also that a parent sitemap already provides components to > > subsitemaps, this doesn't seem so unnatural. Some people also asked > > views to be inherited by subsitemaps, which also goes in this direction. > > No, I don't agree here. Yes, components are inherited and yes views should > imho also be inherited, but this is a one-way-street. The main sub sitemap > gives control to the sub sitemap. You can't use components declared in > the sub-sitemap in the main sitemap etc.
... > And sorry, I really think that this idea comes near to FS - but what > do others think about this? This reminds me on the cocoon get-together at the cebit where someone wanted components _not_ to be inherited. I have to admit that I stumbled over the same question as Ovidiu did lately. What happens (or should happen) if you have an unmatched uri that's within the scope of a subsitemap. If the subsitemap is fully autonomous it should handle the error. But if not - shouldn't it be passed to the parent sitemap? Otherwise I would have to define the error handling in each subsitemap. This doesn't sound like FS to me. In fact it could reduce redundancy a lot... Well, I do think we need at least some clearer definitions here. (Do we have anything explicitly stated in the docs yet?) -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
