jon * wrote:
>
> on 3/19/00 4:29 PM, Kevin A. Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ok... flame me :-)
>
> Na. I understand your motivation, but what I don't understand is why you
> can't just use a crawler and url re-writer to cook the site. The main point
> of Turbine is that it is supposed to be a "Dynamic Web Application
> Framework"...your other complaint is that it is to servlet
> specific...well...that *is* the point of it. ;-) I'm perfectly happy that it
> is servlet specific. ;-)
>
> If you were to use Turbine from the CLI, you would be doing essentially the
> same thing as the crawler so you might as well not go through the extra
> steps.
>
> Personally, I would rather see other portions of the code fixed up first
> before going down this route...it just isn't a priority IMHO. I'm trying to
> bring things closer to a release (which is what you have been screaming
> about for weeks now) and now you want to throw a wrench in it.
>
> If you came up and said that it wouldn't affect much other code, I would be
> all for it...but at this point...I really want to work towards a release.
I am starting to become more comfortable with emulating the
ServletRequest, ServletResponse, etc. It is a different situation for
Cocoon than it is for Turbine. This should work just fine for a lot of
Turbine apps (Jetspeed being one). I will probably tweak the
CocoonServlet* classes and commit them as TurbineServlet* classes.
These will probably do nothing but meet the interface so that we can
dump out content as a document producer under something like
Cocoon/Jetspeed.
Kevin
--
Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://relativity.yi.org
Message to SUN: "Open Source Java!"
"For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
