Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor (was RE: Migrating TreeProcessor to Fortress)

[Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>]

Tony Collen wrote:

> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> 3/ View inheritance
>> Views are nothing more than virtual serializers, with the main 
>> difference that their hint is defined at runtime by the "cocoon-view" 
>> parameter. And since these are components, lookup goes up to the 
>> parent sitemap if a view is not declared in a given sitemap, thus 
>> providing inheritance.
>
>
> Is this really needed, or desirable?  Views are not currently 
> inherited, and making them inherited may break something that people 
> already have setup.  Were views made uninheritable on purpose?
>
> Consider an environment where you have subsitemaps delegated out for 
> separate departments or people to use.  If you have some views in the 
> main sitemap, I wouldn't neccesarily want them propagating down to 
> subsitemaps.
>
> Would an empty <map:views/> tag would override any views in a sitemap?


Nope. You will only define no local views, meaning it will have no 
effect of any kind.

> But maybe this isn't really a problem, if you have everything in a 
> subsitemap, even your "main" one, then you wouldn't have to worry. 
> Likewise, just declare no components in the supersitemap and you're 
> good to go.


That's a solution. Another one may be to take advantage of the 
public/private component managers I suggested. We could declare 
"private" views and resources that would be only visible in the current 
sitemap. But I'm not sure we need this extra semantic complexity.

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

Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor (was RE: Migrating TreeProcessor to Fortress)

[Tony Collen <co...@umn.edu>]

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Tony Collen wrote:

<snip>

> 
>> But maybe this isn't really a problem, if you have everything in a 
>> subsitemap, even your "main" one, then you wouldn't have to worry. 
>> Likewise, just declare no components in the supersitemap and you're 
>> good to go.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a solution. Another one may be to take advantage of the 
> public/private component managers I suggested. We could declare 
> "private" views and resources that would be only visible in the current 
> sitemap. But I'm not sure we need this extra semantic complexity.

Hmm,

<map:view inheritable="true"/> ?

Seems simple enough for me.  Not too keen on the implementation details 
though ;)


PS, here in the US it's Veteran's Day, which seems very similar to your 
holiday in France.  I had to go to the Department of Motor Vehicles and 
transfer the title for a car I just bought, but I found out it's a 
government holiday, so the important stuff is all closed today ;(

> 
> Sylvain
> 


Tony