Pier Fumagalli wrote:
"Upayavira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
var source = cocoon.componentManager.get( Packages.org.apache.excalibur.source.WriteableSource.ROLE + "/file ); source.setDest("whatever"); cocoon.process("whatever",source);
FWIW, that fits nicely with what I'm thinking of doing on the CLI. I plan to
make it write to sources rather than files, and a cocoon.process("some-uri", source)
would work well.
More on my ideas soon.
On the subject of the flow, presumably you could expose the source resolver,
so that you could write the above with something like:
cocoon.process("whatever", resolver.getSource("file://blah"));
It's quite odd to "write" to a "source", but well, better than using LiveConnect.
Thinking out loud... Should the "resolver" then be another read-only
attribute of the script (instead of passing through the component manager?)
I think it would make sense.
anybody sees a reason not to do this?
One of the big changes of Cocoon 2.1 compared to 2.0 is that SourceResolver is now available as a regular component, meaning you get it using "cocoon.manager.lookup(SourceResolver.ROLE)", so I don't see the need to expose it as a property.
Moreover the process() function could simply take an URI string and let the underlying implementation use the SourceResolver to get the actual source and verify that it's writeable.
You will then write :
cocoon.process("whatever", "file://blah") but also
cocoon.process("whatever", "context://xdocs/content/foo.xml") (for a deployed webapp) and even
cocoon.process("whatever", "cvs://my-module/foo")
How does it sound ?
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
