Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> This can often happen with matchers when e.g. an area of the application
> is protected :
>
> <map:match type="wildcard" pattern="admin/*">
> <map:act type="auth">
> <map:match type="wildcard" pattern="admin/adduser">
> ...
> </map:match>
> </map:act>
> </map:match>
Ok, good point.
> So explicit naming as proposed by Ilya finally seems the best approach
> to me, as it removes all possible ambiguities at the price of a little
> added verbosity. Since this added verbosity only happens when this
> feature is used, this actually does no harm.
Agreed.
> Let's see now how we can write that...
[skipped my tries]
> Puke, puke, puke ;-))
:-Prrr
> You're trying to find an alternative to the ':' which is used to
> separate the prefix from the attribute name, because you make the
> assumption that what's before the ':' *is* an inputmodule name.
>
> But isn't it precisely this prefix (i.e. the namespace) that should be
> used to distinguish between inputmodules and sitemap variables ? If yes
> (and I think so), this means we have to find a naming convention for the
> prefix, and not for the separator.
>
> You may puke (if you still can ;-), but what about considering
> sitemap-defined namespaces as internal to the sitemap, and thus prefix
> them with a "#", that we all know as being used for internal links in
> web pages ?
>
> This would lead to (adapted from Ilya's proposal) :
>
> <map:match pattern="*-*" name="mtch1">
> <map:act type="my-action" name="act1">
> <map:generate type="serverpages" src="{#mtch:1}.xsp">
> <map:parameter name="display" value="{#mtch:2}"/>
> <map:parameter name="param1" value="{#act1:1}"/>
> <map:parameter name="param2" value="{#act1:2}"/>
> <map:parameter name="param3" value="{request:1}"/>
> <map:parameter name="param4" value="{1}"/>
> </map:generate>
> </map:act>
> </map:match>
>
> Explanation :
> - {#mtch1:xxx} come from statement named "mtch1"
> - {#act1:xxx} come from statement named "act1"
> - {request:xxx} come from input-module "request"
> - {xxx} works as usual and gets its value from the enclosing statement.
>
> I changed "param-prefix" proposed by Ilya to "name" since this is
> actually what it is : a name given to a sitemap statement.
>
> Thoughts ?
know what? I like it. It seems a pretty nice solution and the use of
anchor-like syntax is simple and understandable.
So you get my +1 on this.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
