Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
[...]
I tested it on the default pub and another pub that was using an
external content dir. It works for both so I committed the changes.
OK, cool!
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=410503&view=rev
Thanks for the headsup and the slim fast solution.
No problem :)
BTW, we should consider handling the source extension in another
way (configuration?). It's not very convenient to add a class just
for a different source extension.
Yeah, you are totally right. Maybe it is time to talk again about the
register extension with resource type on a global basis.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=114258900800004&r=1&w=2
wdyt?
I still think that extensions should be orthogonal to resource types.
The extension belongs to the actual document and should be provided
when the document is created.
- "image" resources can have different extensions
- the ".xml" or ".txt" extensions can be used by different resource types
I don't see a relation between extensions and resource types.
agreed, but the resource type implementation should be able to
initialize a NodeImplementation which
can handle extensions.
Michi
The resource type's concern is how documents are handled.
The document's concern is how it is named.
-- Andreas
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+41 44 272 91 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
