If I understand correctly, the aggregation will read the data from each of the subordinate pipelines WITHOUT the serialization step, so these 2 would be equivalent.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Romayev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2002 22:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Better way to aggregate? > > > I've been looking into the aggregation techniques and > there seems to be two ways people go about doing it. > I'm trying to understand the pros/cons of the two > approaches. > > Approach 1: Aggregate HTML > Each map:part calls a pipeline, which generates, > transforms and serializes to HTML, e.g., > <map:generate src="header.xml"/> > <map:transform src="header2html.xsl"/> > <map:serialize/> > > Approach 2: Aggregate XML > Each map:part calls a pipeline, which generates and > serializes to XML, e.g., > <map:generate src="header.xml"/> > <map:serialize type="xml"/> > > Any ideas? > > Cheers, > -Alex > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > http://health.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Please check that your question has not already been answered in the > FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
