Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hunsberger, Peter wrote: > > > Well I probably don't need to repeat my biases to Stephano, but once > > more: you need a Turing complete language to write work > flow in. You > > need to be able to dynamically modify any given work flow instance. > > FSM's can't do this, perhaps some other forms of state > machines can do > > this, but now you're heading into CS esoteria. Let's use the > > machinery that Cocoon already ships with... > > Yep, I agree [which is interesting, we never could reach agreement on > anything in the past ;-)]
Heh, heh, maybe I'm finally wearing you down? Or maybe you've finally seen the beauty of XSLT? Hmm, better not get you started on another angle bracket rant...
