On 7/28/08, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb: > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Tobias Bocanegra > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > ...i think it would be sufficient if i could set a temporary selector > > > that takes precedence from the "real" ones during script resolution of > > > "this" include. in a way that a request...getSelectors() in the > > > included request does still show the ones present outside of the > > > include... > > > > > > > I agree with Felix that this could be confusing, but how about > > > > <sling:include scriptSelector="content"/> > > > > Which, as you suggest, would replace the selectors only for the script > > resolution of this particular include. > > > > Naming this "scriptSelector" would remove the possible confusion with > > "selector". > > > > So, this selector would just be used for _selecting_ the script, but > RequestPathInfo.getSelectors() would still return the actual selectors ? > Sounds interesting. yes, that would be great.
> But then the actual selectors used for the script selection would not be > visible. Is this a problem ? in the most cases probably not :-) > > > > ... Now, maybe you are not even referring to the include tag > (jsp:include) but > > > > to the include directive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ? > > > > > > > no, but this would be another interesting option.... > > > > > > > IIUC the include directive works at script compilation time, so it > > could not use the current request values, unless we somewhat mangle > > them into the name of the included script. > > > > Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. So lets drop the idea of hacking up the > include directive. i would like to have both, actually. in the most cases, the static include is very sufficient. and this would also solve the "selector" problem, since it's completely request independent. regards, toby
