On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:20:17PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > >Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > >Yes, I think I'm pretty much settled that we should not have two > >different semantics for pipelines and flows. I hear Sylvain about > ><pipeline> being really the problem but I can't think of a better term > >myself and process really sucks. > > > So let's keep pipeline, but please add a FAQ entry about this ;-) > > <snip/> > > >I like the underlying concepts, but I think that: > > > >1) I don't like "process" enough and I don't think we have that much > >of an urge to change the semantics at that deep level. > > > >2) the super-selector should be implicit (Berin proposed something > >along these lines a while ago) > > > >>Ah, and I have no objection for "cocoon:" calling scripts, and would > >>love to call a pipeline with a different output stream ! > > > > > >Cool, but let's make it another vote. > > > OK. So we have some strong and justified -1's against <map:flowmap>...
Yes your argument is convincing, so perhaps we should put the flowmap issue on the back-burner .. ;) One small point though, I still think flow differs from a pipeline because it contains information at more abstract level. As I noted earlier, IMHO a pipelines purpose regardless of redirects, forwardings, or actions is to describe a single "resource". While a flow describes a logical set of "resources"... Anyway, its time for weekend..... :) regards, Michael > > Sylvain > > -- > Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies > http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com > { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
