Conal Tuohy wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >> >>How would this name overloading work with respect to: >>- references from resources back to their calling pipeline >>- from a subsitemap back to the mounting reference >> >>Seems these cases may make overloading desireable. >> >>Geoff Howard >> >> > >I have some reservations at least about the 2nd case. I would be interested >to hear what other people think, because it seems to me that the practice of >a child block referring to named components within the parent block is a >complication worth avoiding. > >It seems to me that a child block should not, as a matter of principle, >depend on its parent block containing a component with a particular >variable-name. This would complicate the interface between blocks, and make >it difficult to re-use them. > >AFAIR the original plan for blocks envisaged information being passed only >in the URI, and if the child block needed access to some data from the >parent then the parent block could pass that data in the map:mount call, >avoiding a dependency on any particular name (effectively passing it as a >parameter). > >
I agree with you, even if we're talking here of sub-sitemap, and not blocks which are a still-to-be-defined beast. Resources are an integral part of a sitemap (think of it as a reusable pipeline snippet, or a subroutine), and thus named variables are visible from resources as from any other place in the sitemap. Mounting is a different thing, and passing named variables to subsitemaps would introduce a coupling with the parent sitemap that isn't desirable. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies Apache Cocoon http://www.anyware-tech.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
