Piroumian Konstantin wrote: >>From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Quoting Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >>>Ehm.. more code, less talk :) >> >>Before you guys start coding something that looks like FS >>from 10 Km, please, >>make a formal votation by writing a small description of what >>you are trying to >>do. TIA > > > After learing what is the FS, I should say, that input modules are really > good replacements for most of the actions and it's not FS, but a better > approach for obtaining values to be used in sitemap attributes. When all the > request, session input modules are implemented, we can deprecate all the > actions that read a value (e.g. RequestParamAction, DOMReaderAction, etc.). > Actions would be needed for setting values, though, but this can be easily > done in the flow layer. > > IMO, Input modules make sitemaps look shorter and more elegant. > Compare: > > <!-- action version --> > <map:act type="request-param"> > <map:generate src="..." /> > <map:transform src="{stylesheet}.xsl" /> <!-- We get the stylesheet name > from a request parameter --> > </map:act> > > <!-- input module version --> > <map:generate src="..." /> > <map:transform src="{request-param:stylesheet}.xsl" /> <!-- We get the > >stylesheet name from a request parameter -->
I totally agree with Konstantin. The imput modules makes alot of actions used so far obsolete (and this should trigger something, Stefano ;-) and also reduce the verbosity in the sitemap. But admittedly I havn't got what the chaining of input modules will be (because of lack of time to dive into to be able to discuss about). Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
