Luca Morandini wrote: > Nicola, > > you wrote: > >>How can you define transitions without logic? >>Transitions are based on rules. >>Rules come from algorithms that operate on the model. > > I agree with you on principle, but, as of now, this wonderful rules are > scattered amongst pages, making hard changing the flow. IMHO just > centralizing that would be a giant step forward.
Obvious. The question is *how* can you define transitions without rules. Look at Petri nets and Graphcets. Interesting discussion for PLCs: http://www.control.com/984669711/index_html Hmmm... Should a flowmap-flowscript be some kind od petri net? > Moreover, you wrote: > > >>And X is for displaying graphics, not running apps. >> >>But Cocoon is not as an X server, it does create applications. > > I think the example you gave is not well chosen: the web constraints > developers to execute apps one page at a time, to deal with a lot of > presentation that has nothing to do with the app, and to rely on tricks to > make an application out of a bunch of pages. > Conversely, X, being a mere abstraction layer, doesn't impose constraints on > apps architecture. Web pages are our abstraction layer for webapps. You cannot write apps with an abstraction layer alone. Webpages also don't impose constraints on apps architecture. -- 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]
