Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I'm asking because I several times encountered the need for some very small app-specific code to be called as part of a pipeline that otherwise don't need all the bells and whistles of a flowscript call, and I'm still thinking a flow-action may be a very usefull addition, i.e. an action that allows to call a flowscript function (and access the global scope) but doesn't require to end with a sendPage or sendPageAndWait.
"I told you so" ;-)
Nonono! What we voted against was the fact that <map:call> could act like a <map:act>, and I'm still -1 on it! What I'm suggesting here is a real <map:act> (and I also suggested it a that time, IIRC)
But why then y'all have VOTEd against it just before a release?
This was to have a clear semantic for <map:call>, requiring it to terminate with a sendPage or sendPageAndWait, contrarily to <map:act> that doesn't require a redirect to happen and can also return values to the sitemap.
These are IMO very different things.
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
