Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier schrieb:
hi everyone!
grepping after unrelated issues, i found out that we seem to offer both
a site: protocol as documented in
http://lenya.apache.org/docs/2_0_x/reference/protocols/site.html
and the new lenya-document: protocol (not currently documented afaict,
but it's the one with the nifty syntax that allows arbitrary parts to be
left out).
imho lenya-document: is a complete superset of site:'s features and
vastly superior. can we get rid of site: before we let it loose on the
world and have to support it forever? or are there conceivable cases
where site: cannot be readily replaced by lenya-document: ?
ATM they are orthogonal. lenya-document: handles UUIDs, site: handles
paths in the site structure. Neither addresses the behaviour of the
other one. I'd like to keep them separated so that it is always clear
what one is dealing with - what do the others think?
ah, ok. that was not clear to me. in that case, we should certainly
retain both.
am i being thick or is that fact a little obscure?
btw, we don't currently have prototol documentation on lenya-document:
iiuc (at least not in the obvious place). i don't have a toolchain in
place to create forrest pages... if i created a draft page, could you
test it and maybe fix it up a little?
regards,
jörn
--
jörn nettingsmeier
home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/
http://spunk.dnsalias.org
phone://+49/201/491621
Kurt is up in Heaven now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
