On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Giacomo Pati wrote: > > >On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > > > > > > >>Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>[...] > >> > >> > >>><map:components> is getting bigger and bigger, and often bigger than > >>><map:pipelines> itself. So what about allowing it to be in a separate > >>>file : > >>><map:sitemap> > >>> <map:components src="sitemap.xconf"/> > >>> <map:pipelines> > >>> .... > >>> </map:pipelines> > >>><map:sitemap> > >>> > >>>This can also be a first step towards the future structure of blocks. > >>> > >>> > >>At one time we wanted all the components in sitemap.xmap, at other times > >>we leaned to putting them in cocoon.xconf. > >> > >>After some time, this is MHO on the subject: > >> > >> - cocoon.xconf is just about the components that make up Cocoon > >> the contents are hardcoded or added by the build system for the > >> "features" and "environments" > >> > >> - sitemap.xmap is about defining the sitemap. Its components > >> can be declared in a separate file it references > >> > >> - components.xmap, or components.xcomp or sitemap.xcomp > >> or sitemap.xconf ... > >> holds component declarations for sitemaps, that can reference it. > >> > >>I know it's what you have just said, I just can't help being formal > >>these days ;-) > >> > >> > > > >I'm not very happy to add semantics for inclusion to the sitemap syntax. > >Can't we stick with DTD Entities to do it? > > > > > > Mmmmh... this is an immediate solution, even if I don't like it much : > it looks more like a hack to hide the problem.
I know, ok. > Also, what about automatic reloading when the entity-defined part > changes ? Do we already handle this ? No, probably not. > >The details of the block architecture should give a solution to these > >problems (at least I see it that way). > > > > > > How will blocks will give a solution ? Is it because a block contains a > xconf along with an xmap ? Will block sitemap still contain a > <map:components> ? Yes. But the problem is IIRC only with the root sitemap, right? Giacomo > > >What do you think? > > > > Well, we have the problem _now_, and blocks aren't going to be there > tomorrow... > > Sylvain > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
