Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb:
[...]
>>> i'm also not sure whether we should maintain the configurable format uri
>>> in the xconf files. why not set up the convention that resource type
>>> formats are to be implemented as "format-FOO" and get rid of the
>>> indirection? or are there examples where the current approach is
>>> absolutely necessary?
>>
>> What would the URL be? A module can provide multiple resource types,
>> and there is no convention like moduleName = resourceTypeName (yet).
>
> then we should pull one out of thin air. or are there huge advantages in
> providing several doctypes in one module? given that you're advocating
> "less doctypes, more formats" for good reasons, i think we won't lose
> anything by mandating "one module, one doctype". and then the format BAR
> of doctype FOO could always be accessible as /modules/FOO/format-BAR.
How about adding a method to obtain the module which declares a
resource type?
ResourceType.getModule()
<resource-types>
<component-instance name="entry" module="blog" ...>
...
</component-instance>
</resource-types>
Then the URL would look like this:
/modules/blog/format-entry-xhtml
> i don't have a problem with leaving that configuration mechanism in
> place for now, as long as all core modules follow the same intuitive
> naming scheme.
> then again, why should we use components for formats? it means we can't
> hot-deploy them. what are the benefits?
ATM we need a place to configure them, and the resource type declaration
was the most obvious location. But when we use a convention for resource
type format URLs, we don't need this anymore. Each resource type should
provide some documentation which formats it supports, though.
-- Andreas
--
Andreas Hartmann, CTO
BeCompany GmbH
http://www.becompany.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
