On Apr 4, 2005 11:16 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Hunsberger wrote: > > >On Apr 4, 2005 10:26 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>On 31 Mar 2005, at 01:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >>> > >>> > > > ><snip/> > > > > > > > >>As all URI discussions tend to provoke strong feelings for Stefano, it's > >>best to say directly that this question is not important enough for me > >>to fight about ;) > >> > >>But anyway, whether we go for an opaque custom protocol or base the > >>block protocol on hierachial URIs we need to get into the specifics for > >>the block URI scheme to be able to implement it. > >> > >>WDYT? > >> > >> > > > >He, he... The more I look at this the more I wonder if maybe it > >really isn't crazy to allow blocks to specify a resolver intercept > >scheme. Just lift the code directly out of mod-rewrite/mod-redirect > >and let a block tell Cocoon what URI's have special concerns: > > > ><resolver>match spec</resolver> > > > >then you can go either way... > > > > > I'm not following you, we already has source factories, so we can make > our resolver as special as we want to. The question was rather if we > should make them less special by using java.net.URI. Or do you have > something else in mind?
Basically, the idea is to have a way for a block to say to treat a given set of URI's in a special manner by performing a remapping on them. That way the incoming request can be generic and transformed into something block specific _before_ it hits the source factory. Eg, being able to say that http://site.com/foo/bar.css ends up as: block:/foo/bar.css where as: ../bar.css gets passed through to Cocoon untouched, or vice versa, depending on the needs of the block and the block user. Perhaps this might be better expressed as a "remap" directive than a "resolve" directive... -- Peter Hunsberger
