I see that the same assumptions are being made here that were made a year ago when this was discussed. I would strongly caution against assuming that the "aspect developer" and the "script developer" are the same person or even work for the same organization. The value of AOP programming styles, such as that used by the rewriter, is that these roles do not need to be aware of each other.
Agree 100% that AEM should change how link rewriting is done. But that's not really Sling's concern per se with respect to the rewriter. Sling's concern should be (1) whether or not AOP has value in a component-based system (I think the answer here is a clear "yes") and (2) what the right programming model is to support AOP. To Reuben's point, it is certainly possible that SAX is the wrong programming model (I personally don't agree, but I have a very soft spot for SAX). But the answer to that IMO is to define a better programming model, not jump to the conclusion that AOP doesn't have value. Cheers, Justin On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:54 AM Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote: > The rewriter is a generic solution (for xhtml) which works independent > of the scripting engine used. However, with engines like HTL which knows > about HTML and has all the contextual information about the html > elements, it is way more efficient to do any transformation whether its > link transformations or anything else already during that step. > Reparsing with a rather expensive XML processing pipeline is flexible > but also slows down the rendering unnecessary. > > Carsten > > Am 10.09.2019 um 14:56 schrieb Ruben Reusser: > > As was pointed out before the rewriter is used in a lot of projects for > > other things than rewriting links (in our case we use it a lot to inject > > legal disclaimers or content fragment models) > > > > The bigger problem however is that it assumes hml == xml and hence can > not > > deal with attributes with no value > > > > Ruben > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:12 AM Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Jason E Bailey <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> ...Can anyone summarize why we are getting rid of it?... > >> > >> I'm not sure if we need to "get rid" of that module, even if some > >> portion of Sling users stops using it. > >> > >> The proposal at [1] says the rewriter should be "deprecated and no > >> longer used", which is apparently what was discussed at the adaptTo > >> round table or hackathon. > >> > >> If people still find the module useful I think it''s fine to move it > >> to "contrib" status instead of deprecating. As long as there's a > >> reasonable expectation that the module will be maintained I think > >> that's a realistic status, but our guarantees are weak for contrib > >> modules so there's no pressure. > >> > >> And if other modules provide better ways of doing similar things, link > >> to them from the rewriter's docs. > >> > >> -Bertrand > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c80093524461d7203fa9799b79ebbf6bfd1bb3f9795865f4aaf3cd4a@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E > >> > > > > > > -- > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > cziege...@apache.org >
