> > >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. > >
So why do you need scripting for that? It seems inconsonant with the rest of Cocoon and even unnecessary. There is relatively minor difference between what XSLT does (match conditions and output a result) and what the flowscript does and the sitemap and what the flowscript does. The gap is I suppose a mid sitemap decision on what the next step should be, therefore, why can the sitemap not be extended with minor conditionals similar to the ones in XSLT and make flow decisions in XML versus Javascript. I regard this flowmap decision as taramount to multiple inheritance. I think its a decision that will later come to be regretted. I also think I'll be seeing Cocoon applications that are virtually implemented exclusively in Javascript instead of using the sitemap at all. > > >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. > > Again, we're discussing something taramount to allowing multiple inheritance in Java. The issue is not whether YOU Stefano would code your business logic in the scripting language, its whether lots of folks would. And hence creating more rediculous and unmaintainable software. Its possible to create bad software in any tool, but some tools enable you to create worse software. Its why Java succeeded despite being far poorer performing over C++. C++ gave you more rope to hang yourself. Its an underlying reason you write Cocoon in Java and not PERL. PERL allows almost all of the features of Java, but it not only allows but encourages bad form. Cocoon has areas that are coded in bad form and without comment, yet I'm able to read them moreso than if they were written by the same person in PERL for instance. The point being is that this is one of those features that enocourages and allows bad form and will probably grow into a beast. > > >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). > > But a scripting language will allow you to do either. > > >>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. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
