Andreas Hartmann wrote: > Jörn Nettingsmeier schrieb: >> i'm not sure i understand vadim's comment, though: >> >>> Vadim Gritsenko - 07/Feb/08 07:28 PM You should differentiate the >>> case when source exists but not cacheable, and when source does not >>> exist. Otherwise you will be caching what must not be cached. >> >> isn't that what >> >> return (newValidity == null) ? SourceValidity.VALID >> : SourceValidity.INVALID; > > I think the problem is that "Source.getValidity() == null" doesn't tell > you if the source doesn't exist or just can't be cached.
ah, ok. i thought null meant "does not exist", and for all existing sources, there'd be a validity object that would indicate if it's cacheable or not... > IMO the whole > null value business is a PITA [1]. I'll try to find out if it can > determined if the source really doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the > SitemapSource doesn't seem to be very cooperative in this regard. For > our scenario the patch probably works, maybe, but it's a huge potential bug.... > maybe we can use a > special-purpose subclass of the InludeTransformer / MultiSourceValidity. not so nice imho - let's keep close to cocoon. this feature would make sense for others as well, so it should go upstream. maybe the thread you started on cocoon-dev turns up something useful.. -- Jörn Nettingsmeier "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
