Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Sources and Modules are incresingly important in Cocoon, and should be > used and documented with more visibility. > Yes.
> Sources are IMHO a fundamental piece in Cocoon, because they separate > the retrival of data from the actual generation of SAX events in a > Generator. > > Input Modules are equally fundamental, as they give another degree of > freedom to the sitemap use-space. Yet they are defined in the xconf and > not in the sitemap as other components. > > Thus, I propose that input modules and sources have heir place in the > org.apache.cocoon.* package space, and that are defined in the sitemap > alongside other components, like their parents generators and actions. > I totally agree with InputModules - and we discussed this already some weeks ago in the thread about the InputModules Interface. If you look at it, this interface was not directly intended for the use in the sitemap. So we should fix this (already discussed, too) as well. Perhaps there is a better name for inputmodules but as I don't want to start a new thread about "what is the best name". I would like o.a.c.sitemap.inputmodules.* Ok, now to the sources... :) - the sources are a configuration on the application level, you once define which protocols you can use in your application and that's it. So, the cocoon.xconf is in my eyes the right place. Furthermore I see some technical problems with declaring a source in the sitemap. Now, if you follow this road, that every important aspect has to be in the sitemap, you can add the xsp logicsheet definitions there as well, because in the sitemap they are more visible for XSP developers. And so on. So I think we should leave them where they are. Bye Carsten Carsten Ziegeler Open Source Group, S&N AG --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
