>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103416369316569&w=2
>>
>> shows you voting -1 on this issue If that's not correct, or you'd
like
>> to revoke your vote, then forget the whole issue...
>
> My vote was about breaking existing systems.
> You said that you would put an attri
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
...
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103416369316569&w=2
>
> shows you voting -1 on this issue If that's not correct, or you'd like
> to revoke your vote, then forget the whole issue...
My vote was about breaking existing systems.
You said that yo
How would you suggest handling it with Cocoon today?
>>>
>>>Since you *have* to define up front between groups which URLS to use,
>>>and define them with no general rule, simply make a FixedListMatcher
>>>that matches based on fixed names in a list, so that you don't need an
>>>expert sys
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>>How would you suggest handling it with Cocoon today?
>>
>>Since you *have* to define up front between groups which URLS to use,
>>and define them with no general rule, simply make a FixedListMatcher
>>that matches based on fixed names in a list, so that you don't n
>>
>> How would you suggest handling it with Cocoon today?
>
> Since you *have* to define up front between groups which URLS to use,
> and define them with no general rule, simply make a FixedListMatcher
> that matches based on fixed names in a list, so that you don't need an
> expert system
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>>Is this necessary? Probably not.
>>
>>In fact, in the above scenario it isn't.
>
>
> How would you suggest handling it with Cocoon today?
Since you *have* to define up front between groups which URLS to use,
and define them with no general rule, simply make a
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>>Umm, forgot to comment on this: if I invoke another classes methods I'm
>>>certainly free to deal with any exception as I see fit? It seems to me
>>>that
>>>a sitemap doesn't implement the equivalent of composition either...
>>
>>A sitemap is not a class either, it doe
>> Umm, forgot to comment on this: if I invoke another classes methods I'm
>> certainly free to deal with any exception as I see fit? It seems to me
that
>> a sitemap doesn't implement the equivalent of composition either...
>
> A sitemap is not a class either, it doesn't have methods.
> The analo
>> Is this necessary? Probably not.
>
> In fact, in the above scenario it isn't.
How would you suggest handling it with Cocoon today?
>> Is there any reason not to allow it?
>> Probably not.
>
> Let me disagree.
>
> A sitemap is a *contract*.
Well that's the basis for the disagreement.
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>>If you think that point 2) is valid, let me ask you; do you ever use
>>>inheritance in Java? Do you ever use inheritance where you only want to
>>>override part of the behavior of the super class but otherwise let the
>>
> rest
>
>>>of the processing continue on as
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>>I can think of many use cases where I might
>>>want to parcel out handling of a portion of a site to some other group,
>>> but
>>>still continue processing a request if the other groups sitemap did not
>>>handle it.
>>
>>Please share them with us.
>
>
> The general u
>> If you think that point 2) is valid, let me ask you; do you ever use
>> inheritance in Java? Do you ever use inheritance where you only want to
>> override part of the behavior of the super class but otherwise let the
rest
>> of the processing continue on as normal?
>
> Usually I never do this
>> I can think of many use cases where I might
>> want to parcel out handling of a portion of a site to some other group,
but
>> still continue processing a request if the other groups sitemap did not
>> handle it.
>
> Please share them with us.
The general use case is where a web site has to han
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>I have the following problem. I want to write a >pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
>>invoked for most of the HTML page generation. However I'd like this
>>rule to be overwritten in sub-sitemaps, e.g. if a sub-sitemap
>>>
>> > >> I have the following problem. I want to write a > > >> pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
>> > >> invoked for most of the HTML page generation. However I'd like this
>> > >> rule to be overwritten in sub-sitemaps, e.g. if a sub-sitemap
>> > >> implements a
Quoting Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>Could you do a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>or something as last one and cascade the way up?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This should work as well, except that it makes another round-trip to
> >>the client browser:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Could you do a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>or something as last one and cascade the way up?
>>>
>>>
>>This should work as well, except that it makes another round-trip to
>>the client browser: ugly!
>>
>>
>
>you could also use a resource - then it should be an
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Quoting Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Ovidiu Predescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:59 AM
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>&g
Quoting Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ovidiu Predescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:59 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: defaulting to a matcher when a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Could you do a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>or something as last one and cascade the way up?
>>
>>This should work as well, except that it makes another round-trip to
>>the client browser: ugly!
>
>
> you could also use a resource - then it should be an internal redirect
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> > Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> >
> > >Currently I'm -0 but with a tendency to -1.
> > >
> > >Why? I see these reasons:
> > >1) This is an incompatible change - currently if nothing matches in the
> > > subsitemap, the erro
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>
>>>No, I don't agree here. Yes, components are inherited and yes
>>>
>>>
>>views should imho also be inherited, but this is a
>>one-way-street. The main sub sitemap gives control to the sub
>>sitemap. You can't use components declared
> > Could you do a
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > or something as last one and cascade the way up?
>
> This should work as well, except that it makes another round-trip to
> the client browser: ugly!
you could also use a resource - then it should be an internal redirect...
btw: do we already hav
On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 05:27 AM, Christian Haul wrote:
> On 06.Oct.2002 -- 10:28 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>>
>>> I have the following problem. I want to write a >> pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
>>> invoked for most of the HTM
On 06.Oct.2002 -- 10:28 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> >I have the following problem. I want to write a >pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
> >invoked for most of the HTML page generation. However I'd like this
> >rule to be overwritten in
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >>
> >No, I don't agree here. Yes, components are inherited and yes
> views should imho also be inherited, but this is a
> one-way-street. The main sub sitemap gives control to the sub
> sitemap. You can't use components declared in the sub-sitemap in
> the main sitema
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>
>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>>Currently I'm -0 but with a tendency to -1.
>>>
>>>Why? I see these reasons:
>>>1) This is an incompatible change - currently if nothing matches in the subsitemap,
>the error handler is invoked and people rely o
On Monday 07 October 2002 13:26, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > This reminds me on the cocoon get-together at the cebit where
> > someone wanted
> > components _not_ to be inherited.
> >
> > I have to admit that I stumbled over the same question as Ovidiu
> > did lately.
> >
>
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> This reminds me on the cocoon get-together at the cebit where
> someone wanted
> components _not_ to be inherited.
>
> I have to admit that I stumbled over the same question as Ovidiu
> did lately.
>
> What happens (or should happen) if you have an unmatched uri
> t
> > >2) I think it is more natural if a sub sitemap is invoked that it is
> > > the sole responsibility of this sub sitemap to process the request.
> >
> > That's true if you consider each subsitemap to be a fully autonomous
> > subapplication, but not if you consider the top-level sitemap to
The common term for this in my neck of the woods is 'scope creep'
> -Original Message-
> From: Morrison, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:00 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: defaulting to a matc
> Flexability Syndrome.
ie, doing things because you can, rather than because you should.
J.
===
Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may
not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee,
> From: Piroumian Konstantin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > And sorry, I really think that this idea comes near to FS -
> > but what do others think about this?
>
> S
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> > Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
[...]
>
> And sorry, I really think that this idea comes near to FS -
> but what do others think about this?
Sorry for a OT question, but what is FS?
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> >Currently I'm -0 but with a tendency to -1.
> >
> >Why? I see these reasons:
> >1) This is an incompatible change - currently if nothing matches in the
> > subsitemap, the error handler is invoked and people rely on this, so
> > this w
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Ovidiu Predescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:59 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: defaulting to a matcher when another one is not present
>>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ovidiu Predescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: defaulting to a matcher when another one is not present
>
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:28
On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:28 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>> I have the following problem. I want to write a > pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
>> invoked for most of the HTML page generation. However I'd like this
>> rule to be o
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> I have the following problem. I want to write a pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
> invoked for most of the HTML page generation. However I'd like this
> rule to be overwritten in sub-sitemaps, e.g. if a sub-sitemap
> implements a rule
39 matches
Mail list logo
