Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> Oh, you aren't being fair. Just because it is too easy to do in
> scripting frameworks, doesn't mean we should allow the same abuse
> of redirects in Cocoon. You just have to think harder.
Well, it's a design decision. I expect from a web publishing framework
that it allows me to build web applications. And redirects are IMHO a
big part of it, they provide program flow. I don't see how a framework
could suffer, if it offers redirects - nobody is forced to use the
redirects, but it should be possible. If you know of another way to do
program flow, please tell me. But web apps are based on HTTP requests
and thus, if I want to do a new thing, I have to make a new HTTP
request.
> Regarding logic in the sitemap, I whole-heartedly agree. Business logic
> does not belong in the sitemap. Period. If you do that, your business
> logic is at the mercy of the sitemap administrator.
Program flow is a large part of business logic :)
> Regarding the proprietary format: there was no standard for this type of
> thing. If you show us a standard on URI space management that keeps the
> filesystem and the URI space orthagonal, we will definitely look at integrating
> it. Unfortunately, this is something that is up to whatever framework
> you use.
Cocoon1 provides a simple way to code program flow into the XML pages
themselves. This is not proprietary if done with logicsheets, because
the XML files themselves are just an interface, that could be
implemented differently if moving outside the Cocoon world. URI space
management should not get in the way of program flow, these are IMHO two
different issues.
> Also regarding the proprietary format: Cocoon can be used accross many
> servlet engines. This reduces the risk of using Cocoon. If you decide
> to switch frameworks, well you have the overhead of removing one
> infrastructure and implementing a new one. I don't care how "standard"
> something is--there is always some point of a little rework that needs
> to be done.
It's not up to me what framework our business partners use. But I have
to able to communicate with them - the Sitemap is an inappropriate
format for this communication. It's too low-level, we need to think in
concepts :-)
> I believe redirects as a result of business logic belong in Actions. That
> logic can be a result of a parameter or whatever--but I don't think the sitemap
> is the place for it. But given your previous arguments that you would argue
> that Actions are also proprietary.
Not if they provide a neutral interface like XSP taglibs do. Hey, Avalon
is full of interfaces :)
> Does the solution I provided above work for you? By tying your logic to session
> beans, you have a portable infrastructure that minimizes dependance on some aspects
> of Cocoon.
I like XSP taglibs, because XML is more a standard than Beans. I can't
give Beans to folks not using Java, but I can give them XML.
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
