You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> on 2003/11/03 23:32:18 UTC
Re: [VOTE] rollback Cocoon 2.2 and do Fortress merge later (was Re:
Fortress Conversion Stalled)
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure I will. It would clearly be a bad thing to trash the time and
>> effort Bering has put there. I may not have the required time to do
>> it by myself, but I'm ready to answer questions. So maybe with the
>> combined support of Berin and me we can turn this into a deeper
>> knowledge of the sitemap engine for the whole group.
>>
>> Berin, what's the major wall you hit in the TreeProcessor? AFAIU,
>> Recomposable is a problem, but also something we can easily remove
>> from the code with some light refactoring.
>>
>> What are the other difficult points?
>
Thanks for continuing the discussion, Berin.
> The TreeProcessor has a bunch of psuedo-components that are managed
> differently than the regular container. If these were all
> "threadsafe" components, there would be less of an issue here.
>
> We should either make them regular components, and provide
> "configuration" snippets, or make them beans and provide the full
> configuration. THe problem areas might be where we need to access a
> component. For those, we might need to use a "Component Proxy" that
> gets the type of component we are looking for from a typed interface
> like this:
>
> SitemapComponentProxy {
> Generator getGenerator(String type);
> Transformer getTransformer(String type);
> Serializer getSerializer(String type);
> Reader getReader(String type);
> Action getAction(String type);//NOTE: sets can simply be a
> //special action type with the same
> interface.
> }
>
> Anyhoo, the basic solution is to either build a tree/graph of pure
> components or a tree/graph of pure beans. Either solution will work.
> We need to get rid of the need for the LifecycleHelper type class. I
> would lean more toward the bean approach for assembling the actual
> pipelines. It might make things a bit simpler, even to make custom
> hard-coded sitemaps.
Processing nodes are organized in a tree and need to have some features
devoted to components such as accessing the CM/SM or needing to perform
some cleanup and thus being disposable.
This led to the current architecture since I considered that components
could only be have a flat organisation. Now maybe I was wrong, and would
like to know how we can build a clean tree of components (we're likely
to need this in Woody as well).
I'll be out of office tomorrow and it's currently late here (11:30pm),
but I will continue this thread as soon as time permits.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com