On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 11:55 +0200, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > Andreas Hartmann wrote: > > Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb: > >> Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>> Further it would be possible to have url specific extension of extra > >>> content and/or extra functionality. Imagine I do not want the breadcrumb > >>> or the lanuageselector on some pages but on other I do. Now I always get > >>> this parts, paying the price that Dominique has described. > >> let's be careful not to stash too much into the URL space.... the > >> flexibility would be a bonus, but awkward URLs can be a problem. plus if > >> we export too many internal features to the outside via URLs, we might > >> open ourselves to exploits and DoSes. > >> for instance, the SVG flag rendering is a potential DoS already, because > >> it's so expensive in terms of cpu cycles. we need to avoid a situation > >> where a malicious site visitor can trigger all kinds of cpu hogs by > >> tinkering with the request URL. > > > > IIUC Thorsten didn't mean to code anything in the URL, but choose a > > different template and thus different navigation elements depending on > > the current URL, resource type, or whatever (e.g., display /news/* > > withouth the news sidebar). > > ah, i see. thorsten, can you explain a bit more? are you thinking of > location-to-feature maps? is that comparable to the locationmaps of > forrest you mentioned before? if yes, could you post an example of such > a location map if it's not too much trouble?
Did you see my other post where I posted some links? There are some examples, if they are not sufficient, sure. salu2 -- Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
