On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > >Currently I'm -0 but with a tendency to -1. > > > > > >Why? I see these reasons: > > >1) This is an incompatible change - currently if nothing matches in the > > > subsitemap, the error handler is invoked and people rely on this, so > > > this will break many installations. > > > > > > > Agree : this behaviour should be explicitely written in the mount. This > > can go through and additionnal attribute such as <map:mount src="sub/" > > must-match="false"> > > > > The "must-match" (or a better name) attribute tells if the request must > > be handled by the request and defaults to true to ensure backwards > > compatibility. > > > > >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. > > > >3) Before you consider implementing this simple sounding change, have a > > > look at all the component manager and source handling stuff which > > > takes place when a sub sitemap is invoked - it's very difficult > > > to implement your wantet behaviour without breaking everything. > > > > > > > Why is this so difficult ? The environment context is changed when > > mounting a subsitemap. Will it be difficult to restore the context when > > "unmounting" a sitemap ? > > > Yes, I think so - I haven't looked too much into the code but I remember > that there will be some problems with respect to the special lifecycle > interfaces handled by the CocoonComponentManager. > > And sorry, I really think that this idea comes near to FS - but what > do others think about this?
I agree in global with Carsten. If a sitemap hands over a hierarchy of the URI space to a subsitemap it should be responsible to handle it *completely*. This is in total harmony with the hierarchical structure choosen for the sitemap design. If a subsitemap is not handling all URIs the parent sitemap should take into consideration using different matching patterns (i.e. regexp) Giacomo > > Carsten > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
