On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > >> Stefano, Vadim, >> >> On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:09 PM, Ovidiu Predescu wrote: >> >>> 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). Good point, Sylvain! Sticking with known names is going to help us in user acceptance as well. > 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 ? How about calling it simply <map:call> instead of <map:flow>? This is how is called today as well, but we need to modify its semantics to support Vadim's proposal, and to get rid of today's <map:continue>. Regards, -- Ovidiu Predescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/ (Weblog) http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/ (Apache, GNU, Emacs ...) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
