Upayavira,
Any thoughts about this ?
Yes. I started thinking, it got complicated, and then forgot to finish thinking. Sorry!
Or do you prefer that I come up with a concrete proposal ? :-)
Not yet.
C�dric Damioli wrote:Thanks.
Upayavira wrote:
C�dric Damioli wrote:
Hi,
I'm using CocoonTask, wich allow CocoonBean to be embedded in a Ant build script.
Great. I'm glad to hear you're using it.
I'm actually running Cocoon in a servlet, which periodically executes an Ant build script ending with the CocoonTask :-) Seems complex, but is really effective !!!
And your work on the CLI is great and very appreciated ;-)
So you're saying that you've got code running in other Ant tasks, and that Java code wants to make collection data available to the CocoonTask? How would it get there? Could you include a sample of the code that your CocoonAntDelegate would use?I'm wondering if there's any reasons why there's no access (via protected method or fields or whatever) to the CocoonBean.
Basically, the CocoonBean is invoked via reflection, using a different classloader. Now, I'm no reflection expert, and calling each getter and setter one at a time using reflection seemed unreasonably complex. So, I chose to create a Delegate class, invoke that with reflection, and have that do the real work.
I'm ok with the concept of "single entry point", but what I wanted is the possibility to act on the CocoonBean before processing the different uris.
Imagine you have a Java method returning a Collection of uris to be processed, you may want to directly fill the CocoonBean with this Collection, instead of dynamically re-creating the CocoonBean configuration.
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean that you can't interact with the Ant project? You can use Ant properties in the Cocoon task. Are you looking for a greater integration?I wanted to use it directly to add BeanListeners, eventually add targets, and so on...
What sort of listeners would you like to add? If you want to specify a different listener, I would suggest coming up with a generic way to specify listeners and add that to the BeanConfigurator, so that all users of the CLI and Ant task get to benefit.
I wanted to add org.apache.cocoon.bean.BeanListener implementations to my instance of CocoonBean.
The problem with adding this at BeanConfigurator level is that we can't interact with the Ant Project (or its Properties), for example, or whatever is not directly tied to the Bean.
I think you're getting at something here. What I'd like to see is the Ant task using Ant's methods and approaches to configure itself, rather than using Java - putting your code into Java can hide it, as far as the Ant script is concerned.
I'm okay with that, but I'd like to see if it is possible to keep that sort of configuration out of Java, until really necessary.IMHO, the best way to "open" the CocoonTask is to allow subclasses to change the delegate class ("org.apache.cocoon.bean.helpers.AntDelegate" at the moment) and to give this delegate access to the calling Ant project.
So you supply a piece of java that configures the bean before running? Hmmm, I would much rather extend the xconf format to be able to add everything you want. The CocoonTask really should not assume any Java knowledge in its users.
Of course, but I think that the xconf format is already very complete for users who do not want to write any Java code : all the setters of the Bean have their counterparts in the xconf format (except the addBuildListener). The next step would be to add a syntax to add Java entry points (such as : <listener class="..."/> or <configurator class="..."/>) but users of such a syntax would have to write Java code anyway.
What I proposed is to have the possibility to extend the CocoonTask (or the AntDelegate, or both) to provide access to users (such as me :-) ) who want to have more control over the Bean.
I'd love to see ways of dynamically creating your list of URIs, and a range of other bean listeners that do other things, other than the default one, etc ,etc.
Regards, Upayavira
