Been thinking about the flowscript issue, and wanted to float some other thoughts regarding consistency.
In my mind, some level of consistency is a "good thing(tm)", and leads to two precepts: 1) Consistent syntax should perform consistently similar functions. 2) Consistent names should denote consistent things. So that begs the question: Why does <map:call resource="xxx"/> behave like a method invocation and returns to the sitemap and continues execution a the point that was left off (assuming the last item in the resource wasn't a serializer). But <map:call function="xxx"/> is expected to never return by always doing a showPage() or showPageAndWait()? This is a Cocoon inconsistency in how <map:call> behaves which breaks the first precept. Maybe it should be renamed <map:flowscript fuction="xxx"> in the latter circumstance or something other than <map:call>? In most programing languages in common usage a "call" implies a return, so there is also an inconsistency here with accepted terminology with respect to the flowscript syntax. This breaks the 2nd precept wrt to common definitions. Just some thoughts... Andrzej Jan Taramina Chaeron Corporation: Enterprise System Solutions http://www.chaeron.com
