If I understand correctly, the aggregation will read the data from each of
the subordinate pipelines WITHOUT the serialization step, so these 2 would
be equivalent.
-Original Message-
From: Alex Romayev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2002 22:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Better way to aggregate?
I've been looking into the aggregation techniques and
there seems to be two ways people go about doing it.
I'm trying to understand the pros/cons of the two
approaches.
Approach 1: Aggregate HTML
Each map:part calls a pipeline, which generates,
transforms and serializes to HTML, e.g.,
map:generate src=header.xml/
map:transform src=header2html.xsl/
map:serialize/
Approach 2: Aggregate XML
Each map:part calls a pipeline, which generates and
serializes to XML, e.g.,
map:generate src=header.xml/
map:serialize type=xml/
Any ideas?
Cheers,
-Alex
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
-
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
