On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:35:01 -0400, Diana Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Thanks a lot, Diana! I hope other people will share the same Schecoon experience as yours! Regards, -- Ovidiu Predescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/ (GNU, Emacs, other stuff) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
