A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I
> think a protocol makes sense if several, different sources
> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
> several files from the FTP server.
> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
> information, the request.
After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might
justify the implementation of a RequestSource.
Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is
allowed to paste an HTML (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is using
some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of invalid HTML, like the MS
rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to
well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom action
or XSP page or custom generator. But wouldn't it be much easier to just
write something like:
<map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
?
Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't
one, if I wrote this kind of Source, would it be useful to someone else
beside me?
Ugo
[1]: http://composite.mozdev.org/index.html
--
Ugo Cei - http://www.beblogging.com/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
