On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > Just a silly question: are you joking or do you consider this seriously?
> >
> > Absolutely :) See the other thread. It separates two concerns that are
> > currently mixed, and makes module implementation _much_ simpler. I think
> > Chris, Konstantin and I are all very happy with it. Now's the time to
> > raise objections..
> >
> Yes, ok, if you are all happy with this...I can't stop you from doing this.
> I personally don't like the concept, because the configuration is static in
> the cocoon.xconf - I don't see this in the sitemap.
I assume you _want_ to configure the chain in the sitemap?
> And yes: I still believe in SoC, which means a usual Cocoon user has only
> to edit (and know) the sitemap - he should not care about the cocoon.xconf.
How about that <map:modules> config section then?
<map:modules>
<map:module name="forrestconf">
<config>resource:///forrestconf.xml</config>
</map:module>
<map:module name="defaults">
<values>
<skin>defaultSkin</skin>
<baseurl>http://foo.com</baseurl>
</values>
</map:module>
<map:module name="skin">
<map:module name="request-param"/>
<map:module name="forrestconf"/>
<map:module name="defaults"/>
</map:module>
</map:modules>
Hm..
Anyway, disregarding this issue for a moment (Ugo had similar doubts),
are there any problems with the basic idea of 'meta' modules that chain
together other modules?
--Jeff
> Carsten
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
