Hi Juanjo, Juan José Vázquez Delgado schrieb: > Thanks for your smart response.
.. and thanks for the flowers ;-) > [snip] >> There is yet another alternative, which also sounds intriguing: We >> define a ScriptEngineFactory for the ".pipeline" extension. Files with >> the extension .pipeline would be pipeline configurations, which would be >> interpreted by the PipelineScriptEngine. The second part of the >> processing -- preparation of the input data -- would be analogous to the >> above with the two options : >> >> /a/b/data >> +-- sling:resourceType = "sling/pipeline/sample" >> >> /apps/sling/pipeline/sample/html.pipeline >> "file with pipeline config" > > Definitely this is my favourite one among your proposals. With this > approach we have a clear separation between content and presentation > as well as keep the typical resolution way in Sling. Great!. > > On the other hand, IMHO the datasources would be into the "content > resource" as properties (/a/b/data in your proposal). I fear, I do not understand this sentence. > > This approach is close to the idea about treating pipelines like > regular scripts. There will be nice to have pipeline definitions in a > Cocoon way (like they are in the sitemap.xml). WDYT?. Right, AFAICT. Regards Felix
