On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > I think Sylvain has a point. I'm not sure I like 'sendPageAndReturn' > that much, but it's true that 'sendPage' contains less semantic meaning > than 'sendPageAndWait' and therefore might become a little confusing at > first. It's a little bit semantically unbalanced and this doesn't > reflect in their functional operation. > > So, let's see, that method is supposed to 'send a page' to the client > but is not going to wait for the client to come back and continue. So, > the real name would be something like > > - sendPageAndDontWait > > but that sucks. > > - sendPageAndReturn > > is nice but only if you understand that the flow layer takes control > over the sitemap and that 'return' means that you are returning from > procedural continuation-based control (the flowscript) to declerative > request driven control (the sitemap) > > So it does have perfect sense for us, but I'm not sure it does for > somebody that looks at the flowscript for the first time. > > But I can't come up with anything better because > > - sendPageAndExit > > might be even worse (people might think Cocoon might stop!) > > Any idea?
As you said above the function does two things: 1. send a page 2. does not wait So, how about splitting it into two function: - sendPage - getAnswer Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
