In my use case, only one thing is missing in the current implementation.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think it is not possible to apply the same script for
all kind of Sling resource types and/or Jcr Node types.

For example :
If the case of a GET with a Json extension (with or without selectors) is
required, I would like to resolve the same esp script.  Is it not a simple
solution ? WDYT?

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Something like providing a new JsonWriter component at runtime ?
>>>>
>>> Yes, that would work. We could also have a JsonWriterFactory that's an
>>> OSGi service, but that feels like overkill right now.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I have the same feeling. I think it is a general issue: as the
>> default servlets are a core feature in Sling (ie. simple updating of
>> JCR content), but very often you want to customize the behaviour for
>> certain properties or nodes, this seems like a general pattern, that
>> yet needs to be solved. Having a different plugin architecture in each
>> default servlet (providing custom writers, request objects etc.) feels
>> like the wrong solution. Especially if you consider the elegant way of
>> script/servlet resolution in Sling by using resource-types with
>> inheritance etc.
>>
>> IMHO this is the same (development) problem that Ruby on Rails solved
>> very well: using scaffolding to provide a working out-of-the-box
>> experience but then also allowing you to refine the default behaviour
>> step-by-step. The way it's done in Ruby is a combination of source
>> generating scripts, code generating logic in the classes itself (easy
>> with a dynamic language) and also using Ruby's missing-method (that is
>> called when a method is called that is not defined on the object).
>>
>> I have no clear solution in my head, but I think it's a place where
>> Sling could improve. WDYT?
>>
>>  Not sure :) Can we first collect the possible use cases? Is one use case
> to replace the json renderer completely? Or do you want to use a different
> json renderer depending on the path or the resource type?
>
> Carsten
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Reply via email to