On 31 Jul 2004, at 17:31, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Jul 2004, at 02:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004, at 19:00, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many
On 31 Jul 2004, at 02:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004, at 19:00, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many times
it felt just too verbose for the task... so it would be kinda cool
to
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 31 Jul 2004, at 02:26, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004, at 19:00, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many times
it felt just too verbose for the task... so it
Il giorno 30/lug/04, alle 00:24, Sylvain Wallez ha scritto:
Don't take all this badly Ugo: I see much more dangers in turning the
sitemap into a scripting language than the advantages brought by
saving a few keystokes or the ease of implementation. But I'm all for
a simplified implementation of
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 30/lug/04, alle 00:24, Sylvain Wallez ha scritto:
Don't take all this badly Ugo: I see much more dangers in turning the
sitemap into a scripting language than the advantages brought by
saving a few keystokes or the ease of implementation. But I'm all for
a simplified
You raise a few good points, but I don't agree with all of them.
You're right that XML is a given for working with Cocoon. That's not a bad
thing. But people already need to know a lot more than just XML in order to
understand a sitemap. There seems to be a cutoff point in the development of
a
Nicola Ken Barozzi writes:
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 30/lug/04, alle 00:24, Sylvain Wallez ha scritto:
Don't take all this badly Ugo: I see much more dangers in
turning the
sitemap into a scripting language than the advantages brought by
saving a few keystokes or the ease of
On 28 Jul 2004, at 19:00, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many times it
felt just too verbose for the task... so it would be kinda cool to
have the ability to have two syntaxes.
As long as I don't have to rewrite
Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Geoff Howard wrote:
Why insert this stream of consiousness into this
discussion? I have a
gut feeling that something in this discussion could lead to
a solution
along these or totally new lines that cures this uneasiness, or
could
On 30 Jul 2004, at 12:07, Vilya Harvey wrote:
A scripting language feels like overkill for simple pipelines, but the
XML syntax is very awkward for more complicated ones. The appropriate
choice comes down to how soon you feel that cutoff occurs, for the
kind of sites you develop.
If the
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004, at 19:00, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many times it
felt just too verbose for the task... so it would be kinda cool to
have the ability to have two syntaxes.
As long as
Marcus Crafter wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:15, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
But let not implementation details (or technics) drive the syntax.
It is more important to have a good sitemap language than to have
a clean and small implementation.
I agree too mate.
Something that I'm wondering about
On 29 Jul 2004, at 09:19, Marc Portier wrote:
Rest assured I'm equally concerned with a number of other voices here
about (using Ugo's wording) 'giving just more rope to hang yourself
in'
However, when I see people 'removing and merging' then I can only see
less rope :-)
IMHO we need to be
David Crossley wrote:
Miles Elam wrote:
snip excellent explanation/
Thanks Miles, you eloquently said everything
that i wanted to say.
Miles, thank you too! I couldn't say it better!
--
Reinhard
Conal Tuohy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
As others have said, one needs to step back and look at the overall
objective: what do you want Cocoon to do when you feed it a request
(either via http or CLI or whatever)? Figure out all the
high level
use cases and
Steven Noels wrote:
On 29 Jul 2004, at 09:19, Marc Portier wrote:
Rest assured I'm equally concerned with a number of other voices here
about (using Ugo's wording) 'giving just more rope to hang yourself in'
However, when I see people 'removing and merging' then I can only see
less rope :-)
On 29 Jul 2004, at 19:34, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
A little bit of history is needed:
Thanks for your recount of my lurking years. :-)
Now, for those who were not there at that time: Ovidiu's proposal was
*NOT* accepted happily. For the most part, it was not understood until
several months
Steven Noels wrote:
snip;
IMHO, simplicity has to do with predictability. XML grammars have this,
scripting languages don't. While the use of a non-XML (scripting?)
grammar for the site/flowmap might be clever, it might reduce the
predictability. Too much magic for my poor brains. And even XML
On 29 Jul 2004, at 20:40, Tony Collen wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
snip;
IMHO, simplicity has to do with predictability. XML grammars have
this, scripting languages don't. While the use of a non-XML
(scripting?) grammar for the site/flowmap might be clever, it might
reduce the predictability. Too
Ugo Cei wrote:
Dear Cocooners,
while working on Butterfly, I started looking at the TreeProcessor and
I was astonished at the number of classes I have to port, if I want to
reimplement it:
o.a.c.components.treeprocessor: 26 classes
o.a.c.components.treeprocessor.sitemap: 44 classes
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Miles Elam wrote:
snip excellent explanation/
Thanks Miles, you eloquently said everything that i wanted to say.
Miles, thank you too! I couldn't say it better!
+1 !
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
I'm still in skimming mode, but I'll lob a nearly incoherent thought
in from the sidelines...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:29 -0700, Stefano Mazzocchi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A little bit of history is needed:
- at the beginning there was no sitemap. all the pipeline machinery was
Geoff Howard wrote:
Why insert this stream of consiousness into this discussion? I have a
gut feeling that something in this discussion could lead to a solution
along these or totally new lines that cures this uneasiness, or
could make it even worse.
I feel the same way: sitemap and flowscript
Steven Noels wrote:
On 29 Jul 2004, at 20:40, Tony Collen wrote:
Scripting languages (and programming languages in general) are easy to
create, all you need to do is define the grammar and tokens, and feed
it all to something like JFlex/BYacc to create a parser. Perhaps it's
easier said than
Tony Collen dijo:
Steven Noels wrote:
On 29 Jul 2004, at 20:40, Tony Collen wrote:
Scripting languages (and programming languages in general) are easy to
create, all you need to do is define the grammar and tokens, and feed
it all to something like JFlex/BYacc to create a parser. Perhaps
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
And let's keep in mind that groovy is not even release final (I talked
to James Strachan yesterday about this.. and he's obviously very excited
and told me a way to implement continuations in groovy once macros are
built into the language... which is due in the near
Conal Tuohy dijo:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
inside the pipelines (well, actions are
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 00:45, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Ugo Cei wrote:
(you can find it in Butterfly's CVS)
the SVN repository has been setup. It would be nice to have that
development over on SVN since we could see what's going on ;-)
I just finished reading the Subversion book, but have
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 08:12, Antonio Gallardo ha scritto:
I agree. The idea I buyed from XML was that we don't need to add new
parsers, easily transformations using XSLT, etc. and that is a point we
will lose.
We have 74 classes to maintain in the o.a.c.components.treeprocessor
package. It's
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 04:02, Vadim Gritsenko ha scritto:
Why stop half way and live with one more interpreter's penalty?
Convert straight to Java - works faster and less memory consumption!
And we are back on square one ;-P
Some reasons come to mind: Groovy gives you a much more concise
Interesting idea. Just out of curiosity, why Groovy and not JavaScript?
Vil.
--
__
o| _. / \|o._ _ _ ._ _ ._ _ _|_
\/ ||\/(_|| (|/||| |(/_(_)| |(/_o| |(/_ |_
/ \__
http://website.lineone.net/~vilya
First let me say that I'm really excited by your work. Thanks for that!
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 04:02, Vadim Gritsenko ha scritto:
Why stop half way and live with one more interpreter's penalty?
Convert straight to Java - works faster and less memory consumption!
And we are back
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ugo Cei wrote:
(you can find it in Butterfly's CVS)
the SVN repository has been setup. It would be nice to have that
development over on SVN since we could see what's going on ;-)
What is the repository address? Noone updated the docs yet.
--
Leszek Gawron
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Conal Tuohy dijo:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
inside the pipelines (well,
Conal Tuohy wrote:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
inside the pipelines (well, actions are kinda
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Guido Casper wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that the sitemap is a declarative thing
(and the pointy brackets always remind us of that). While skripting the
I think this is not true. For those who do not use flowscript sitemap
became a programming language a long time
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 09:56, Vilya Harvey ha scritto:
Interesting idea. Just out of curiosity, why Groovy and not JavaScript?
I wrote it in my RT, because it's trendy ;-)
--
Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 10:32, Guido Casper ha scritto:
One thing to keep in mind is that the sitemap is a declarative thing
(and the pointy brackets always remind us of that). While skripting
the sitemap for sure is a powerful tool to the experienced developer,
it further breaks the pyramid
On Wednesday 28 July 2004 11:28, Guido Casper wrote:
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Guido Casper wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that the sitemap is a declarative thing
(and the pointy brackets always remind us of that). While skripting the
I think this is not true. For those who do not use
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 09:56, Vilya Harvey ha scritto:
Interesting idea. Just out of curiosity, why Groovy and not JavaScript?
I wrote it in my RT, because it's trendy ;-)
Fair enough. :-) Do you intend to use Groovy in other places throughout
Butterfly, or just for the
Leszek Gawron dijo:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Conal Tuohy dijo:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
Vilya Harvey dijo:
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 09:56, Vilya Harvey ha scritto:
Interesting idea. Just out of curiosity, why Groovy and not JavaScript?
I wrote it in my RT, because it's trendy ;-)
Fair enough. :-) Do you intend to use Groovy in other places throughout
Leszek Gawron dijo:
Conal Tuohy wrote:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
inside the pipelines
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Suppose you have an IDE for Cocoon where you need to read the sitemap and
show the user it in a GUI. This is my point. The XML version will be
easier.
Easier to read or easier to implement the display component? So what if
the displaying component is easier to implement if
Ugo Cei dijo:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 08:12, Antonio Gallardo ha scritto:
I agree. The idea I buyed from XML was that we don't need to add new
parsers, easily transformations using XSLT, etc. and that is a point we
will lose.
We have 74 classes to maintain in the
Leszek Gawron dijo:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Suppose you have an IDE for Cocoon where you need to read the sitemap
and
show the user it in a GUI. This is my point. The XML version will be
easier.
Easier to read or easier to implement the display component? So what if
the displaying component
Christian Mayrhuber dijo:
I'd rather suggest to propaget the use of flow over the use of actions
together with to be written cocoon design patterns.
Yep. AFAIK, this is the way to go. I think we are migrating to that.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
First, thanks Ugo for comming up with fresh ideas!
Personally, I'm happy with our XML based version of the sitemap,
but who knows, perhaps there are nicer ways of describing the
sitemap than XML?
I think this discussion is moving in the wrong direction. There
are pro and cons for an XML based
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
If we were creating a commercial product with GUIs all over
the place
I would agree: it is better to create easily parsable format and
provide a gui for it. But not in this case. We do not have
a GUI and
won't have for a long time.
It is just a matter of
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:15, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
But let not implementation details (or technics) drive the syntax.
It is more important to have a good sitemap language than to have
a clean and small implementation.
I agree too mate.
Something that I'm wondering about is what the
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 12:59, Vilya Harvey ha scritto:
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 09:56, Vilya Harvey ha scritto:
Interesting idea. Just out of curiosity, why Groovy and not
JavaScript?
I wrote it in my RT, because it's trendy ;-)
Fair enough. :-) Do you intend to use Groovy in
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 14:15, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
But let not implementation details (or technics) drive the syntax.
It is more important to have a good sitemap language than to have
a clean and small implementation.
I beg to disagree. I'm perfectly comfortable with the current sitemap
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
One of my project contains about 35 entities right now. After it started
growing I resigned from mapping my entities manually in XML and started
to use XML. I have no nightmares anymore :)
I don't understand this. Please explain.
I mean the xml format of the mapping
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 14:15, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
But let not implementation details (or technics) drive the syntax.
It is more important to have a good sitemap language than to have a
clean and small implementation.
I beg to disagree. I'm perfectly
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 15:11, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
It's the implementation that is bugging me: 74 classes are
not a small package. Can we do it with less? I hope so.
Hehe, but you suggested both: a new implementation and a new syntax,
or?
What happened is that I started thinking about
Marcus Crafter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:15, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
But let not implementation details (or technics) drive the
syntax. It
is more important to have a good sitemap language than to
have a clean
and small implementation.
I agree too mate.
Conal Tuohy wrote:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
inside the pipelines (well, actions are kinda
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 00:45, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Ugo Cei wrote:
(you can find it in Butterfly's CVS)
the SVN repository has been setup. It would be nice to have that
development over on SVN since we could see what's going on ;-)
I just finished reading the
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/04, alle 20:01, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Subclipse runs just fine on eclipse for osx.
Last time I tried it crashed Eclipse without mercy. But I remember
seeing a blog post somewhere detailing how to properly configure it
with security and all the rest. In
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
As others have said, one needs to step back and look at the overall
objective: what do you want Cocoon to do when you feed it a request
(either via http or CLI or whatever)? Figure out all the
high level use
cases and their interactions, step back, generalize and
Stefano wrote:
Conal Tuohy wrote:
It's [XML sitemap syntax] also potentially useful for validation.
Nop, wrong. There is no XMl validation language that can tell
you if the
sitemap is valid from a cocoon-logic point of view (for
example there
is no class file name datatype, or no
Conal Tuohy wrote:
Stefano wrote:
Conal Tuohy wrote:
It's [XML sitemap syntax] also potentially useful for validation.
Nop, wrong. There is no XMl validation language that can tell
you if the
sitemap is valid from a cocoon-logic point of view (for
example there
is no class file name
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
without java and flow, the sitemap is far from being turing complete.
Well ... this is getting off the topic of the thread, but actually I
don't think is true. Maybe you are forgetting that you have recursion
with the cocoon: protcol. With URI matchers and selectors I
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
if we had a unified sitemap+flowscript - sitescript that used
components *and* continuations as native objects of the language,
would the need for separation be that high and the notion of merging
the two so sinful?
I don't know.
But I would *love* to have such a
Miles Elam wrote:
snip excellent explanation/
Thanks Miles, you eloquently said everything
that i wanted to say.
--
David Crossley
David Crossley dijo:
Miles Elam wrote:
snip excellent explanation/
Thanks Miles, you eloquently said everything
that i wanted to say.
+1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Hi,
Speaking from the perspective of a Cocoon user with a probably larger
than normal install base, I'd be _very_ scared about upgrading to a new
version of Cocoon if my old sitemaps don't work. I realise that the
work you're doing is research focused, but I still think a bit of
pragmatism is
Ugo Cei wrote:
Dear Cocooners,
while working on Butterfly, I started looking at the TreeProcessor and I
was astonished at the number of classes I have to port, if I want to
reimplement it:
o.a.c.components.treeprocessor: 26 classes
o.a.c.components.treeprocessor.sitemap: 44 classes
I love it!
-Brian
On Jul 27, 2004, at 5:34 PM, Ugo Cei wrote:
if (match .*\.html) {
generate input.xml
transform xslt, stylesheet1.xsl
transform xslt, stylesheet2.xsl
serialize xml
}
Corin Moss wrote:
Hi,
Speaking from the perspective of a Cocoon user with a probably larger
than normal install base, I'd be _very_ scared about upgrading to a new
version of Cocoon if my old sitemaps don't work. I realise that the
work you're doing is research focused, but I still think a bit of
Sinful as it might sound, I had been thinking about a non-XML syntax for
the sitemap for a long time ;-)
Well, I have to admit I came across this
thought too lately.
Pipelines quite often felt like functions
to me. The virtual components thread always
remembered me on a call hierarchy.
Lately
Ugo Cei wrote:
(you can find it in Butterfly's CVS)
the SVN repository has been setup. It would be nice to have that
development over on SVN since we could see what's going on ;-)
--
Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Tony Collen wrote:
Corin Moss wrote:
I guess if you'd
really like a Groovy based sitemap declaration, then existing XML
sitemaps could be pre-parsed into Groovy?
Ugo and I were just talking about this on IRC. There's pretty much a
1-1 correspondence with the sitemap and the proposed syntax. We
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Sinful as it might sound, I had been thinking about a non-XML syntax
for the sitemap for a long time ;-)
Well, I have to admit I came across this
thought too lately.
Pipelines quite often felt like functions
to me. The virtual components thread always
remembered me on a call
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Tony Collen wrote:
Corin Moss wrote:
I guess if you'd
really like a Groovy based sitemap declaration, then existing XML
sitemaps could be pre-parsed into Groovy?
Ugo and I were just talking about this on IRC. There's pretty much a
1-1 correspondence with the sitemap and
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap
iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster
of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting
inside the pipelines (well, actions are kinda like
76 matches
Mail list logo
