Re: DispatcherServlet

[Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>]

Carsten Ziegeler skrev:
> Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
>> Reinhard Poetz pisze:
>>> Some suggestions
>>>
>>> servlet:byId:com.mycompany.block1.servlet:/...
>>> servlet:!com.mycompany.block1.servlet:/...
>>> servlet:~com.mycompany.block1.servlet:/...
>>> servlet:@com.mycompany.block1.servlet:/...
>>>
>>> My favorite is the last one.
>>
>> I really like last one. I would agree to have such a syntax.
>>
> Now, I don't want to spoil the contest here, but I would be great if we 
> could choose a real url syntax which is parsable by the java.net.URL 
> class. It is a) good to have valid urls and b) a long time ago we had 
> the idea of just using plain java.net.url implementations instead of the 
> source resolver bean (and actually I'm currently working on this), so 
> all sources which are now available through the source resolver will be 
> available using the plain java api.

Being able to use java.net.URL would be awesome!

> So, I think its worth considering this now :)

Absolutely, but AFAICS the above URI:s actually are valid. According to 
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/net/URL.html the URL syntax 
is defined by RFC 2396 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt). And for 
opaque URI:s (i.e. if scheme-specific part does not begin with a slash, 
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/net/URI.html#isOpaque()) 
there are very few restrictions on the scheme specific part.

URL:s of the form block:foo:/bar worked fine with java.net.URL in the 
Cocoon OSGi prototype.

/Daniel