Anders Lindh wrote:
>
> >> Ok, thanks a lot for your info. I now understand it is possible, but
> >> extremely complicated and verbose to do redirects in Cocoon2 :-)
> >Oh, you aren't being fair. Just because it is too easy to do in
> >scripting frameworks, doesn't mean we should allow the same abuse
> >of redirects in Cocoon. You just have to think harder.
>
> I have to agree on the first point. Migration from C1 to C2 is everything
> else than compile & run, just because of this one thing. I agree that
> using actions in the sitemap is a more clean solution, and yes, I agree that
> program flow shouldn't be dictated in xsp pages. But couldn't this one
> little
> feature be implemented (with warnings, and some restrictions) just so that
> C1 users could play around with C2 and enjoy the new features? I'd really
> appreciate
> it...
One of the issues is technical in nature. Because of the SAX stream approach
that Cocoon 2 uses, the XSP page is being serialized AS it is being parsed.
What is happening is that each SAX event (startDocument, startElement, etc),
is being propogated through the entire SAX chain and being transformed as they
are called. Once the root element has been propogated, there is no turning
back.
This is the blessing and curse of SAX based pipelines. It also has caused us
to rethink how we do things. What we came up with is truly better in the long
run. Be happy that we didn't keep redirects _only_ in the sitemap (as was
originally proposed). I championed the cause to allow them in Actions as well.
Beyond that, I highly doubt that it is technically feasible to allow them in
XSP--and reliably expect them to work.
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
