On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Reinhard P�tz wrote:
> > From: Stephan Michels
> >
> > <map:initiate> -> select flow -> <map:flow> \\
> > -> select implementation -> <flow-processor>
> >
> > Ohh moment, what makes the flow component different from
> > other sitemap components? Nothing!
>
> >From a technical POV you are completly right but I share Stefano's idea
> that we should show our users that the flow component is different from
> the sitemap components. So I'm -1 on this.
>
> >
> > <map:components>
> > <map:flow name="petshop" class=
> > "org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter">
> > <reload-scripts>true</reload-scripts>
> > <check-time>4000</check-time>
> > <script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/>
> > <script src="flow/petstore.js"/>
> > </map:flow>
> > <map:components>
>
> ... so I like the new section <map:flows>...</map:flows> more. See the
> reasons above.
Oh yes, I mean
<map:components>
<map:flows>
<map:flow name="petshop" class=
"org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter">
<reload-scripts>true</reload-scripts>
<check-time>4000</check-time>
<script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/>
<script src="flow/petstore.js"/>
</map:flow>
</map:flows>
<map:components>
like every other components.
> And I think it is FS to determine the implementation
> (org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter) at
> sitemap level.
> Do you have a usecase which makes this necessary? I wrote a lot of JS
> flow scripts and haven't had a need for this yet.
1. Usecase: You don't want to use flows -> remove the flow section
2. Usecase: You have different flows in the same map.
3. Usecase: You use different implementations in the same map.
The fact, that specifying of components in the sitemap is in general
a bad pratice, is another point, but don't want to discuss
here(,perhaps later :))
> > <map:initiate type="petshop" start="addItem"/>
> > <map:continue type="petshop" id="{1}"/>
> >
> > Hey, I love this :)
>
> I think this obscures that a flow processor/engine is used. Of course
> this makes only sense in connection with <map:flows>...</map:flows>.
> Therefore I like following syntax more.
>
> <map:initiate flow="addItem" type="petshop" />
> <map:continue flow="{1}" type="petshop" />
>
> Would you be fine with this?
I thought with @type to combine the implementation(Javascript) and
instance(petstore.js), which I see as practice, which already used
with the other components.
Another way could be
<map:initiate flow="addItem" type="petshop" src="flow/petstore.js/>
<map:continue flow="{1}" type="petshop" src="flow/petstore.js/>
And the flow processor could cache the instance with @src
as key.
But nevertheless, I like most
<map:components>
<map:flows>
<map:flow name="petshop" class=
"org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter">
<reload-scripts>true</reload-scripts>
<check-time>4000</check-time>
<script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/>
<script src="flow/petstore.js"/>
</map:flow>
</map:flows>
<map:components>
<map:pipeline>
[...]
<map:initiate type="petshop" start="addItem"/>
[...]
</map:pipeline>
<map:pipeline>
[...]
<map:continue type="petshop" id="{1}"/>
[...]
</map:pipeline>
This makes the concept really symmetric to the other
components, and can signal that the continuations
are the successor of the actions.
Stephan.5~
