Leszek Gawron wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
<snip/>
The nice thing with this propsal is that it is back compatible and
follow current (emerging) conventions. OTH with the blocks
architecture, using the resource protocol is not such a good idea. In
OSGi resources have URLs like bundle://3/org.apache.cocoon.foo e.g.
where "3" is the number of the bundle and is deployment order
dependent and is therefore not usable in sitemaps. In OSGi one
typically puts the resources at the top level of the jar or in
directories at top level. There is normally not that much reason for
puting resources in the Java package structure, as the bundle poften
is an apropriate level of granularity anyway.
Look at cforms resources. flattening this structure will give you
maintenance headache.
I'm not talking about flattening the structure just about not having the
prefix org/apache/cocoon/cforms as this allready is taken care about by
the symbolic block name.
Your proposal makes sense and we should make something about the
issues you describe. What you describe will not be particulary future
proof though.
It will help at least for now and is applicable also for 2.1.x.
Sure it will, but if we want to introduce a new standard way of doing
things it would be better if we find something that will work well with
blocks.
/Daniel
