Stephan Michels wrote:
[A] The "Cocoon Advanced Control Flow" provides a controller that is linked into the sitemap (as **child element** of <map:sitemap .../>:
<map:flow type="[yourEngine]"> [configuration] </map:flow>
This reflects that the flow is not a *usual* sitemap resource but something else.
The point, which irritates me, is that you don't have a identifier to address the script/whatever.
So my favorite choise will be
<map:flows> <map:flow name="js" type="javascript"> <script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/> <script src="flow/petstore.js"/> </map:flow> <map:flow name="java" type="atct" class="org.apache.cocoon...."/> <map:flow name="fsm" type="fsm" src="descriptors/fsm.xml"/> </map:flows>
So this will be coherent with the other objects.
Which leads the sentence "This reflects that the flow is not a *usual* sitemap resource but something else." ad absurdum :)
[B] The controller is called by:
<map:call flow="[yourFlow]"> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/> </map:call>
Seems fine, an alternative will be
<map:initiate flow="js" call="[Javascript function]"> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/> </map:initiate>
<map:initiate type="java" call="[Java method]"> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/> </map:call>
<map:initiate type="fsm" call="[Name of state]"> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/> </map:initiate>
I like the combination of initiate/continue
initiate/continue is ok, but what about keeping syntax of all sitemap objects using @type and @src:
<map:initiate type="java" src="[Java method]"/>
Or is it to far away from the sense or even misleading?
[C] A state of the controller is called by:
<map:call state=""> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/> </map:call>
We don't call states in this sense. We continue a continuation ;-) I guess <map:continue continuation="{1}"/> is bad.
<map:continue src="{1}"/> or <map:continue id="{1}"/>
Same like above, so I prefer @src.
[D] All flow interpreters[3] are Avalon components and declared in the cocoon.xonf:
<flow-engine default="[yourController]" logger="[yourLogger]"> ... </flow-engine>
+1, except the name, see next.
[E] Changes in the current Javascript implementation: - rename "Interpreter" to "FlowEngine",
Again, to be coherent my favorite is <flow-processor> like <xslt-processor> and <xpath-processor>, or treeprocessor.
flow-engine vs. flow-processor - I don't know ...
- rename "WebContinuation" to "FlowState", and accordingly "WebContinuationManager" to "FlowStateManager".
Here I prefer the States for the reasons Marc provided, so +1 here.
Yes, the Continuation represents a state, but to make a clear difference as a new concept, I think 'Continuation' is accurate. But 'Web..'?!
- rename "WebContinuation" to "Continuation", and accordingly "WebContinuationManager" to "ContinuationManager".
If not states, but continuations at least remove 'Web' => +1
Conal Tuohy wrote:
What about <map:continue from="..."/>
Hmm, I don't really like it. We don't need an English sentence :)
Otherwise you could also change to <map:generate from="foo.xml"/>, <map:transform with="bar.xsl"/> and <map:serialize as="html"/>. @type and @src is a good abstraction IMO.
Joerg
