Torsten Curdt wrote: > > 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... > Ok, I agree that error handling might be different, but if I'm not wrong, it already works: If you don't have an error handler for "resource not found" in your subsitemap, but one in your main sitemap where the map:mount is located, this should catch the error.
> Well, I do think we need at least some clearer definitions here. Yes! Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
