Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Andrzej Jan Taramina wrote: > > > >Why forbid it? I see no reason to elminate such a useful feature, unspecified or > >otherwise. > > There's been a discussion about this, and we agreed on the fact that he > semantics of <map:call function> and <map:call> continuation implied > that it _must_ redirect somewhere using sendPage, sendPageAndWait or > redirectTo.
I tried to find some relevant discussion. There were many useful excursions, but here is one good lead: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106780848625753 It looks like there was even a FIXME note in the code, so people should definitely not rely on other behaviour. --David > The semantics you would like is the one of an action. I proposed to add > a "flowscript action" that would share function and global variable > scopes with the flowscript but have the appropriate contract of > returning a Map of values to the sitemap. > > So the flowscript call semantics will be strengthened in the 2.1.4 to > avoid abuses of this unspecified behaviour. And the fact that you > already rely on this behaviour shows that we must correct things quickly. > > If it was only me, we would forbid it ASAP for the 2.1.3 release. What > do others think? > > Sylvain
