Reinhard Pötz wrote:
From: Marc Portier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Mark,
Good remarks!
thx.
<snip />
Renamings: - V1 : FlowState(and -Manager)
I would leave the names as they are because as you (I think it was you) pointed out that this belongs to the implementation and not the interface.
So I'm -0 on a renaming.
Well, this in fact touches the very topic of why I think the <map:continue flow=".." /> could loose the need for a @type indication...
if all the flow implementations would have their continuing stateful beasts implement the same interface (FlowState) then we get to have a higher level of reuse... (and more common stuff between different implementation, and more cross polination between their teams, and...)
so what I really meant is that WebContinuation could continue to exist but then by implementing FlowState and as such be managed by the BasicFlowStateManager (the same Manager would then manage the stateful objects that can continue flows initiated by any engine/processor)
also: implementing a FlowStateManager is IMHO about other concerns then how you instantiate them in their very nature (which is the job of the Engine/Processor) -- I'm planning some RT on those concerns in the near future, think to date I couldn't achieve a lot more then chaotic ramblings
so the sepecific execution context these managed FlowState's need to perform their 'continue' action should be enclosed in the implementation (and thus hidden behind the interface)
[NOTE: I'm using in aparent self-confident-mode a verb like 'should' but I reall am very much in dream-out-loud mode still, comments and feedback welcome, is this making sense?]
Coming back on the vote:
the issue here is not really about renaming these classes, but about introducing this FlowState abstraction layer. Your remark rightfully makes me see I was starting to overlook the subtle nuance.
all in all, I have the feeling this is not really part of the public interface we want to nail down here and now ?
(meaning that I believe the introduction of this layer could be done whithout much effect on applications that just use an certain flow implementation, of course the flowprocessor impl's themselves would have some refactoring ahead)
the same remark probably goes for the FlowEngine/Processor and might explain our lesser natural connection to these issues on the table?
Reinhard
what do others think?
-marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
