I guess I am a bit confused as to what is wrong with
/path/to/document.pdf
/path/to/document.html
It seems to me that such a request specifies both the location of the
content in question and provides fairly strong hints as to the template
to run. I understand that some people may want to say that .html and
.htm are the same file but in our experience here at edmunds it is very
much desired not to ignore the extension. Also, someone proposed having
scripts include other scripts when two extensions want to be act
identically is not bad since we could address both use cases.
mahalo,
paddy
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Nov 19, 2007 11:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Though, on a tangent, I'm wondering if we could achieve the same use
cases with just the existing URL-to-JCR-path mapping. [...]
The disadvantage is that it makes a mess of hierarchical access control
and relative links. Very bad.
We could also do something like .../path/to/document/pdf (or even
../path/to/document?format=pdf though that's a bit ugly and requires
special case code) to make relative links easier. Access controls
shouldn't be a concern as long as they're embedded within the
underlying repository.
My main concern is that we are currently splitting the URIs four ways
(resource path, selectors, extension, suffix) when I think we could do
just as well with two parts (resource path, suffix). This would IMHO
make the URI mapping much more straightforward and flexible, at the
price of moving part of the mapping code from the Sling framework
itself to the servlet components deployed in Sling.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
