>>>> hmmmm, hmmmm, hmmmm, I have FS alarms ringing all over the place in >>>> my head, but I have several great examples of where having that >>>> would rock the planet.... but still, I'm afraid of people going back >>>> adding programmatical logic to the sitemap.... >>>> >>>> ... but it would be *so* cool to have a Workflow definition language >>>> created as markup and then having a pipeline that generates the >>>> flowscript by XSLT transformation! >>> I've been exploring the ability to define flow via XSLT and parsed >>> markup >>> for some time now. I've a conceptual design in my head so far, but it >>> is >>> very different from what exists in Cocoon so far, and different from >>> generating flowscript: it seems to me that the essential requirement >>> here >>> is just to be able to drive Cocoon via XSLT parsing of the current >>> context >>> (request, session, etc. as the user sees fit). > > <snip/> > >> >> Ok, we'll keep this on the stack of 'possible wild proposals', ok? :) >> >> No, seriously, I'm very happy when people think about radically >> different approaches to solve the same problems because that's how >> innovation takes place. >> > > Gosh! > > I was expecting to see Stefano blow up there!! ;) > > What you are describing sounds very like a common Cocoon 1 webapp > model, whereby XSLT Stylesheets would use data in the DOM and internal > logic to inject Processor Instructions to direct transformation flow.
Never got to play with C1.... > I still find myself wanting pipelines that will react to changing data > in the pipeline, ie, changes the processing path by changes in the > data. But you are in a world of pain trying that in Cocoon now, it's > not the way you are supposed to work .... you can't suddenly say, Ohh > look, I reckon I need to run the SQLTransformer on that .... unless you > always put it on your pipeline whether it is needed or not. Unless you > have a MetaTransformer ... applies whatever Transformers are needed, > that are registered to handle that namespace. Well, I can see how you don't want to use a procedural model to do all this. Is sort of sounds like the C1 method wasn't a functional model and/or it allowed dynamic modification of the input model? > In fact thats analogous to your pipeline fragments you want to call > from inside another pipeline, he! he! ;) a pipeline with no generator > and no serializer is a meta-transformer! (head down ;) He! He! Indeed.... Interesting comment; it points out how close what I was describing is to the problem in general. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
