On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 08:45 Europe/Rome, Jay Freeman ((saurik)) wrote:
Stefano:
Could you describe what you mean by "above" and "sideways"? :) I'm not sure
what you are seeing, hehe. To me the "super-sitemap" (which is kind of what
this would be, as the main sitemap would be a subsitemap of it) is "above"
the sitemap, and cocoon.xconf is relatively unrelated and is therefor
"sideways" from the sitemap.
Also, to me at least there seems to be more of a "hackish" feeling in having
to different ways to setup components, one using xconf semantics, and one
using sitemap semantics. I'd rather have the base.xmap one where you can
have an extra file of just component definitions from a sitemap that are
overridden by the sitemap itself rather than putting that same thing in the
xconf... at least the layout of the file would be the same (but that still
seems hackish in the sense that this extra feature was added to support
what's pretty much a limited super-sitemap).
Ok, here is what I think it would be wise to do:
1) leave cocoon.xconf as is
2) allow the sitemap to get components configurations from an external file or from an inside definition (as today).
3) write our main sitemap pointing to its components to an external file.
The proposed sitemap syntax is something like
<map:sitemap>
<map:components src="blah.xconf"/>
<map:pipelines> ... </map:pipelines> </map:sitemap>
In case, both src="" and internal components are defined, these overload the ones included in the file.
How does this sound?
--Stefano.
