Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > Also I think it's a > lot easier for new users to come up to speed on such an approach, > compared to the similar sitemap-based implementation.
I think this is a crucial point. At first, I was too invested in my "sitemap on steroids" to begin to appreciate the freedom and elegance of Ovidiu's flow map. Try to think back what it might be like if you were learning Cocoon for the first time. When you hold up many of the informative examples (on this list to date) of the two approaches, Schecoon would be so much more compelling for a newbie, at least in my opinion. (And, I don't think the fact it requires Javascript is a hurdle, given the likelihood of most people's prior experience on the client-side.) In my early experiences with the sitemap, I really resented having to sift around code to understand/remember how this or that compiled action worked -- even if I had programmed it myself. I had to build lots of pipelines before I could abstract the problem down to the correct and elegant few that I actually needed. It took me a week to get my wizard working satisfactorily (ok, I may be a slow learner, but this was before the public efforts of others on this list). With the flow map, prototyping/experimenting is a delight. I just feel I spend more time on the problem I'm trying to solve, not the implementation. Now that I've played with Schecoon, returning to a sitemap-only approach feels, well, burdensome. Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
