You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it> on 2002/10/16 21:30:30 UTC
Re: Source vs. Generator
A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I
> think a protocol makes sense if several, different sources
> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
> several files from the FTP server.
> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
> information, the request.
After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might
justify the implementation of a RequestSource.
Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is
allowed to paste an HTML (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is using
some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of invalid HTML, like the MS
rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to
well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom action
or XSP page or custom generator. But wouldn't it be much easier to just
write something like:
<map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
?
Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't
one, if I wrote this kind of Source, would it be useful to someone else
beside me?
Ugo
[1]: http://composite.mozdev.org/index.html
--
Ugo Cei - http://www.beblogging.com/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Source vs. Generator
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
>> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
>> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I think a
>> protocol makes sense if several, different sources
>> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
>> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
>> several files from the FTP server.
>> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
>> information, the request.
>
>
> After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might
> justify the implementation of a RequestSource.
>
> Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is
> allowed to paste an HTML (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is
> using some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of invalid HTML, like
> the MS rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
>
> Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to
> well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom
> action or XSP page or custom generator. But wouldn't it be much easier
> to just write something like:
>
> <map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
>
> ?
>
> Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't
> one, if I wrote this kind of Source, would it be useful to someone
> else beside me?
I was planning for something similar, but working on
request/session/application parameters/attributes, with integration with
xscript variables and webapps.contexts, and (possibly) with JXPath support.
PS These ideas go back to
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=102760517302812&w=2
Vadim
> Ugo
>
> [1]: http://composite.mozdev.org/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Source vs. Generator
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
>> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
>> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I think a
>> protocol makes sense if several, different sources
>> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
>> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
>> several files from the FTP server.
>> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
>> information, the request.
>
>
> After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might
> justify the implementation of a RequestSource.
>
> Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is
> allowed to paste an HTML (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is using
> some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of invalid HTML, like the MS
> rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
>
> Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to
> well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom action
> or XSP page or custom generator. But wouldn't it be much easier to just
> write something like:
>
> <map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
>
> ?
>
> Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't
> one, if I wrote this kind of Source, would it be useful to someone else
> beside me?
A Source is a way of obtaining a piece of information.
A Generator is a way of converting it to XML.
Since all Generators need to obtain a piece of information first, it's
only logical that every Generator should work from data gotten from a
Source.
Sometimes it won't be practical, but conceptually it stands, and it adds
a great deal of flexibility.
As for the Request, we are used to it being an Object per se, but it's
really an Object *holder*, a reference.
So it's a way of obtaining Objects, not only an Object itself, so it
should be repackaged as a Source.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Source vs. Generator
Posted by Andy Lewis <aj...@ascii27.net>.
I could see uses for it - very similar to what you suggest. However I was instead looking into
achiving the same thing with the Request Generator, the Fragment Extractor and internal
pipelines...
> A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
>> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
>> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I
>> think a protocol makes sense if several, different sources
>> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
>> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
>> several files from the FTP server.
>> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
>> information, the request.
>
> After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might justify the implementation
> of a RequestSource.
>
> Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is allowed to paste an HTML
> (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is using some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of
> invalid HTML, like the MS rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
>
> Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to
> well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom action or XSP page or custom
> generator. But wouldn't it be much easier to just write something like:
>
> <map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
>
> ?
>
> Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't one, if I wrote this
> kind of Source, would it be useful to someone else beside me?
>
> Ugo
>
> [1]: http://composite.mozdev.org/index.html
>
> --
> Ugo Cei - http://www.beblogging.com/blog/
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
--
"The heights of genius are only measurable by the depths of stupidity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org