On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Bryce Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...for this one it would be good to be able to
> change the resource type between stages as well (maybe using ordered child
> nodes to store the information rather than a multivalue property) e.g.
> {
> "pdf.pipeline" : {
> "generatefo": {
> "outputFormat":"xml",
> "resourceType":"bar"
> },
> "serialize": {
> "outputFormat":"pdf"
> }
> }
> }
> would run /apps/foo/xml.ftl then /apps/bar/pdf.ftl (for example).
That looks nice but this is also easy to express with a pipeline
scripting language, for example:
generate (outputFormat: xml, resourceType: bar)
serialize (outputFormat: pdf)
And I think it's more inline with what we're doing currently -
pipelines would then be just another script engine, which IMHO makes
sense: like a script, a pipeline taks the current Resource as input,
processes it according to a specific execution language, and writes
the result to the client.
But the killer advantage of scripts vs. node structures, when it comes
to programming (and pipelines *are* programming in my opinion) is the
ease of editing: with scripts you need no tools other than curl or a
WebDAV client to work with Sling, whereas node types are much more
painful to edit, even with a good JCR explorer.
> ...More wondering what the thoughts are on the general idea of using the nodes
> in jcr rather than a scripting language for this purpose?...
Let's see what others think!
-Bertrand
