From: Reinhard Pötz > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [RT] Generalizing the flow > > > From: Christopher Oliver > > > > > > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Names are one of the most important things in design, since > > it's first > > > through the names that a user goes into a set of classes. > Bad names > > > imply wrong understanding. Abstractions named after a particular > > > implementation make other implementations look clumsy, since they > > > don't fit into the name, even if they fit into the real > underlying > > > concept. > > > > Fine. Would you mind demonstrating at least one alternative > > implementation of "FlowEngine" and "FlowController" so that > > the rest of > > us can make a technical assessement of how well it "fits" if > > you intend > > to make these name changes? > > > > Even so, I really don't like your names. <map:call> made > > perfect sense > > when calling a continuation or function (since they are actually > > callable). I don't quite get what "calling" a "state" means. > > > I would be interested in this too because I'm wondering what > can you do > with a plain Java controller what Actions can't do for you? Or do you > _only_ want to make a shift away from actions?
I think we need some more time to investigate these issues. Is it a problem if we decide to change some class names and sitemap elements after we released a beta? I'm asking because beta1 should be released in a week and I think it is too early to decide *NOW* if we should follow Sylvain's/Marc's proposal or not. What do you think? Cheers, Reinhard
