On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 06:46:41PM -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Guido Casper dijo:
> >> I think that cocoon.getComponent(role) would be enough if writing those
> >> components would be as painless as writing flowscript. No need for more
> >> complex stuff.
> >
> > I don't think developers aren't eager to write reusable components. But
> > currently it's just that hard to come up with components really making
> > the user's life easier.
>
> Yep. One of the things that refrained us to write components is the too
> much overhead they have:
>
> 1-Implementations of the lifecycle: Configurable, composable, etc.
> 2-The (1) give you even more code to write based on the implementations
> you choosed in (1).
>
> And people just want to write a simple hello wold component. The question
> is how much lines I need to write. And when we realize it is more than 20
> lines. We are lost. It is really the better way to do things?
>
> I think the key is in KISS. The Flow Engine is so popular because of his
> own simplicity. And that is cool.
>
> I realize that components are a diferents than FlowEngine scripts. But I
> try to sell the concept of easy components writing is what the users need.
> An alert is already out: People is starting to (ab)use of FlowEngine code
> because they feel it is easier to write the full logic on FlowEngine
> instead of writing a component. I think we need think about this fact. On
> the mail list are clear samples of how they are even making workarounds to
> make things works in Flow at any cost, even when using a component will be
> easier (you have full access to many thins and in flow you have not the
> same access). But the perception win in this case.
>
> Components are existed before Flow, but Flow is more popular than writing
> components, the question is why?
flowscript + notepad vs. components + eclipse. and the winner concerning
development lifecycle time is: flowscript.
Flowscript is:
a) scripted
b) automatically reloaded by cocoon after changes without container restart.
> I will add I will prefer to change the default FlowEngine language from
> javascript to Groovy. I really believe it will give the user a more
> productive language with the best Java integration. It will be really a
> good tradeoff.
What does groovy have that flowscript lacks? For generators it would be much
better than XSP but I do not see a value added when talking about flowscript -
just another syntax.
a) you do not have a groovy editor (with autocompletion)
b) you cannot check your script for typos before running
Those are two most irritating things in my experience with JS flowscript
lg
--
__
| / \ | Leszek Gawron // \\
\_\\ //_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\\()//_
.'/()\'. Phone: +48(501)720812 / // \\ \
\\ // recursive: adj; see recursive | \__/ |
