Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Why do we have to replace the blockcontext: protocol at all?
Take a look at its current source code. There is no such a thing like
"blockcontext:" protocol implementation at the moment.
Therefore I'm asking ...
In my [RT] mail I explained how we could possibly to stop cheating
pretending there is a blockcontext protocol and replace it with
blockcontext expression that would better reflect current implementation.
making the blockcontext protocol an expression is just another big hack IMO.
Another possibility (suggested by you) is to provide real implementation
of blockcontext: protocol and use blockcontext protocol in base URLs for
blocks. I cannot comment on this solution because I haven't enough free
time to check all implications. Remember: you will put blockcontext into
ServletContext that is rather general interface. I don't say there is
any problem, I'm only saying I haven't checked if there is none.
Steven and I made the servlet protocol based on JNet work for Corona yesterday
(not committed yet). Then we had a quick look into the resolution of the
blockcontext protocol and we don't see any problem why it should not work.
I prefer (only for now, as a quick solution) first way because there is
not much room for discussion, brainstorming and general research which
is quite opposite to URL-em-them-all approach. I really would like to
fix SSF ASAP and let the discussion/research on URL go in parallel.
Making blockcontext: a real protocol seems to be the simplest and by far the
most elegant and most obvious solution. I will give this a try either today or
at the Hackathon and find out if it is really as simple as expected.
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member, PMC Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
