On Monday 07 October 2002 13:26, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > 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.
<teaser>But what makes error handling so different?</teaser> ...but I agree :) for matchers this sounds like FS. This would also blur the definition of a sitemap context. -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
