Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
>>>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...
>
>
> Ok. Here's my vision: a flowscript is the location where you place your
> flow logic. The flow logic is the collection of instructions that
> indicate how to make the transition from one page to another.
>
> Everything else shouldn't be there.
Ok.
>>>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.
>
>
> I hear you, but since we all agree that business logic shouldn't be in
> the flowscript, I don't understand the need to discuss whether or not
> it's good to have business logic defined in a scripting language.
>
> This is an entirely separate concern.
+1
>>>So, please, let's place this back on the stack.
>>
>>It's already on the stack underneath, this is part of the flowscript
>>definition.
>
>
> It's hard to define what a business logic is, but it's easy to know if
> this has anything to do with describing the transition between pages
> (flow).
+1
>>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.
>
>
> No, no, no. With this you are assuming that it's equivalent to use a
> scripting language to describe business logic. This is yet to be
> discussed, but this is an entirely different concern from this
> discussion, thus my call to stop it until we have finished focusing on
> the flowscript.
Ok, I agree.
Let's remember that flowscript is a potential liability in a sense that
it can be really abused in doing what you and I know it shouldn't do.
BTW, just a RT... this means that we would have MVFC: model, view, flow,
controller... :-?
--
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]
