<snip/> > c) the flow cannot only work as a controller but can work as a > procedural way to map any transition-part of a FSM. This includes > workflows and might include distributed web services.
isn't this a controller in any way? > I know it would be easier *right now* to name it 'controller' and forget > about all the above, but I ask you to think in 5 years from now, then > place your vote. I am not quite sure if there is really this big difference. Right now I'd go for controller. Sylvain's example was very straight forward. > I vote for <map:flow>. I have a slight preference for controller but not enough to vote against this. It's more a +0 for <map:controller> -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
