Hugh Sparks wrote:
> It appears that IncludeTransformer might work if I pass the parameters
> in the url, which would make an ugly mess out of my code.
>
> IncludeTransformer is pretty simple. Would it be appropriate to add
> optional protocol for controlling the request (GET, POST) and passing
> parameters in an element? Or would it be better to add some new thing
> like a rewrite of the old CIncludeTransform?
> It seems excessive to have Include, XInclude, and CInclude...
>
> This is what I'm doing now with C2:
>
> <ci:includexml>
> <ci:configuration>
> <ci:src>http://myserver/cgi-bin/someScript.sh</ci:src>
> <ci:parameter>
> <ci:name>method</ci:name>
> <ci:value>POST</ci:value>
> </ci:parameter>
> </ci:configuration>
> <ci:parameters>
> <ci:parameter>
> <ci:name>param1</ci:name>
> <ci:value>value1</ci:value>
> </ci:parameter>
> ...
> </ci:parameters>
> </ci:include>
>
> I think it would be good for C3 to have some kind of "door" to
> invoke scripts on the server. And cramming things onto the URL
> and using GET isn't very attractive.
I think that it would be the best idea to port the CInclude transformer
of C2. When I wrote the IncludeTransformer, I just did the simplest
possible thing, no POST support or support for parallel include pipeline
execution.
Any contribution would be highly appreciated!
--
Reinhard Pötz Founder & Managing Director, Indoqa
http://www.indoqa.com/people/reinhard-poetz.html
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member reinh...@apache.org
________________________________________________________________________
