Ugo Cei wrote: > 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?
I was planning for something similar, but working on request/session/application parameters/attributes, with integration with xscript variables and webapps.contexts, and (possibly) with JXPath support. PS These ideas go back to http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=102760517302812&w=2 Vadim > Ugo > > [1]: http://composite.mozdev.org/index.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
