> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrzej Jan Taramina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Thoughts on flowscripts.... > > > 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...
One note: With VirtualSitemapComponents map:resource will be deprecated. -- Reinhard
