Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > Stefano, Vadim, > > On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:09 PM, Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > >>> 2) is the 'flow' really a <map:resource>? >>> >>> I don't think so. A flow is a flow. This calls for a more explicit: >>> >>> <map:flows default-language="javascript"> >>> <map:flow name="prefs" src="prefs.js"/> >>> <map:flow name="something-else" src="something.scm" >>> language="scheme"/> >>> </map:flows> >>> >>> which allows: >>> >>> - to declare more scripts (this eases aggregation of different >>> webapps, >>> will be useful for blocks) >>> - to map them to different interpreting engines based on their >>> language. >> >> >> I remember this being discussed some time ago. I think the ability to >> describe multiple flows in one sitemap is nothing else than FS. A >> flow is usually associated with a complete application. Having >> multiple flows is a complication which may makes things harder to >> write and follow. >> >> What I'm instead working on is a simpler setup, like this: >> >> <map:flow language="JavaScript"> >> <map:script src="prefs.js"/> >> <map:script src="some-other-script.js"/> >> </map:flow> >> >> The idea here is that we have a Cocoon Web application described in >> the current sitemap, whose flow is described in multiple script >> files. Again, make no mistake, flow in this context is not a simple >> sequence of pages, but it describes the whole application. E.g. a >> map:flow element describes all the scripts that compose the Controller. > > > Actually I now realize that declaring flow scripts this way, > interferes with Vadim's proposal on using <map:flow> to invoke a > function or restart a continuation. Can we find a better name for > <map:flow> in this context? I was thinking of <map:flow-resources>, > but it's a bit too long for my taste. As an alternative how about > <map:controller>?
I like very much this <map:controller> as it's the name used traditionnaly in the MVC pattern. Cocoon shouldn't invent a new word (map:flow) to designate a well-known concept. MVC is much hyped and is a "magic word" for many customers (see how many of them want Struts because it's MVC). If we choose <map:controller>, then using <map:flow> to call this controller doesn't sound well. Something like <map:call-controller> sounds better, but you may find it a bit lengthy... Other thoughts ? <snipped what="single element proposal which I agree with"/> Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies Apache Cocoon http://www.anyware-tech.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
