Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > Don't think this is the best way to do it. The current > MountTableProcessor means that you only can mount SitemapProcessor and > no other kinds of controllers, as it explicitly manage the creation of > the SitemapProcessors. IMO it is better to let the component container > (Spring) create the SitemapProcessor (and other processors), then the > MountTableProcessor instead contains an association between uri prefixes > and component ids. And this makes it usable together with any processor > as its not the concern of the MountTableProcessor to create the > processor anymore. Ah, yes, you're right of course. I forgot to mention that I wanted to change the MountTableProcessor later on to exactly provide that feature.
> Also it makes the path to the sitemap for a specific SitemapProcessor a > concern for the configuration of the SietmapProcessor rather than the > configuration of the MountTableProcessor. Much better SoC IMO. Yes, true - unfortunately the configuration gets a little bit complicated as you then have to add each and every sitemap processor as a bean in spring instead of using a generic approach. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
