Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Ok, let's start this really /proactive/ (I love this word, it just fills
>>one's mouth ;-) RT about a business logic definition system that has
>>these goals:
>>
>>1. has a quick write-test-correct cycle, ie not to be compiled
>>2. is easy to write and understand
>>3. is modular
>>4. will make flowscript a solution to a problem, not a problem itself
>>
>>Definition
>>------------
>>
>>What the are business components-rules-whatever?
>>
>>A - definition(s)
>>B - use cases
>>C - actors involved
>>
>>?
>
>
> Please, stop.
>
> Let's avoid the usual "let's tackle all problems at once" and let's try
> to get something hammered down before starting using brain cycles in
> some other directions.
This is actually part of the hammering down.
I was talking about definitions (ie what flowscript isn't), not
implementations...
> There are yet many doubts to cover from the flowscript stuff that start
> talking about something else makes less sense ATM, IMHO.
This is one of them.
Flowmaps are so powerfull that all the stuff that was innapropriate to
be done in the sitemap (heavy webapps) will automatically slip over to
flowmaps.
And since it's procedural, it's a *big* concern of mine that flowscript
will become the problem-solver catchall.
> So, please, let's place this back on the stack.
It's already on the stack underneath, this is part of the flowscript
definition.
When you made the sitemap you also talked about what it *isn't*, not
only what it *is*.
Spitscript is what should stay out of the flowmap.
Did you really think I would call our business model "spitscript"?
Ok, ok, I know the answer ;-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
