Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Per-Olof Norén wrote:
>
>> Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
>>
>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>
>>>>> IMNSHO, the flowmap should totally replace actions and deprecate them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahem, I thought we decided *not* to deprecate them, as they make
>>>> sense as elements in the declarative sitemap.
>>>>
>>>> For web apps Actions should be *strongly* discouraged, but can have
>>>> uses in sitemap-only publishing sites.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that Actions are not as natural to Cocoon sitemap as
>>> Generator, Transformers and Serializers are. What is the right
>>> replacement for them which will glue front end with the business
>>> logic layer.
>>> Are you saying that the flowmap will call Java code directly?
>>> Would you need to write gluing JavaScript even for simple one page
>>> input handling?
>>
>>
>>
>> My interpretation would be that if that input handling is needed it
>> should be done in the flowmap.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>> If there is a need for an action, one should use flow.
>
>
> Actions are not only for input handling.
>
>> Personally I tend to hesitate to write an action and if a actually do
>> it i tend to "overwork" it, costing lots of unneccecary hours to the
>> project at hand. Therefore i agree with Stefano on his quest for an
>> action-free cocoon, given that it is expanded from its current form of
>> course :)
>
>
> :-)
>
> If I want to log every request to my custom system, I could make an
> action that does it and it would be simple.
> Do I have to write a one-line flowmap for it?
> Dunno, maybe it could be ok, maybe not...
>
> ...I think that this decision (of deprecating Actions) will have to be
> taken when the flow is really working well; ATM we don't have enough
> elements to discuss it correctly.
While the flow script is a cool thing, no one is going to code
everything in java script. Especially not complex things. Database
operations are an example.
So, put them into an avalon component. Great. But doing all the look up
manually in javascript is tiresome. Uh, could we come up with a
simplification? But then we would need a common interface for it, yes,
that's it!
But wait - we do have that already! It's called "Action". Just that we
currently can't use it in flow script.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could use an action in the sitemap as well as
in a flow script? There are currently about 50 actions available in C2.
Wouldn't that boost flow script?
Just my 2˘
Chris.
--
C h r i s t i a n H a u l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837 7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
