Re: [RT] Flow/Sitemap Integration

[Stefano Mazzocchi]

Michael Melhem wrote:

Hmmm, but if we get that far, then

 <flowmap>
  <map type="regexp" patter="blah*" flow="blahFlow"/>
 </flowmap>

isn't just syntax sugar for

 <pipeline>
  <match type="regexp" pattern="blah*">
   <call function="blahFlow"/>
  </match>
 </pipeline>

???

Hmm..Well maybe, but for the fact that flowmap section in not within the
pipeline section (which I think we agreed is what we want)
and that the treeprocessor would not allow actions or
other routing components which would otherwise be allowed within the
pipeline section.

Good point.

if we agree that something like the following sitemap syntax
is desirable:

<map:sitemap>
  <map:components>
  </map:components>

  <map:flow>
    <map:script>
      <src="myflow.js">
    </map:script>
    <map:flowmap>
      <map:map pattern="login/"  flow="login"/>
      <map:map type="regexp" pattern="register*/"  flow="registerUser"/>
      <map:map pattern="logout/" flow="logout"/>
    </map:flowmap>
  </map:flow>

  <map:pipelines>
    ...
  </map:pipelines>
</map:sitemap>

We could define a flow mapping as a "matching" between a flow function
and its corresponding entry point pattern (which could be an URI
or whatever)

True.

We could use the <map:match> directly withing the flowmap to implement
this, but this would not force the user to call a flow method and would
not allow for the compact easy-to-read syntax above.

But I'm pretty sure that people *will* want to extend that and will complain about the fact that <map> and <match> do, in fact, the same thing, but with different semantics and this won't please people (nor please my sense of semantic elegance, to tell you the truth)

If we use <map:map> component (as suggested above), the question then
becomes, how do we get the <map:map> component to match (URIs in
the above case)?

Is there a reason why we wouldnt use (under the hood) the
already existing matcher components to the matching here?.

No technical reason (that I can think of) but it's a purely semantical one.

Granted that it makes sense to move the flow hooks from the pipeline, I think that we should reuse semantics where it makes sense, because people already made an effort to learn it and in that case we reduce their need to learn new stuff.

Thoughts?

--
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]