Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
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()
BTW, the current ResourceType interface wouldn't even have to be
changed - getFormatURI() would just consider the module name.
We'd have to remove the getFormats() method, though, if we don't
specifiy the formats in the resource type declaration.
ah, so there is a way of accessing a doctype's formats via the java api?
if its actually used, i need to rethink my prior statements. COC is nice
as long as you're in the same realm. across realms (in this case Java
API vs. sitemapland) it means hardcoding stuff that is never spelled out
anywhere, which has problems as well. but then, a big fat static final
string might do to make it obvious and maintainable in the future.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurt is up in heaven now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
