The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: David Sean Taylor
Created: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:58 AM
Body:
Im -1 on this unless you can fully support the same functionality that exists in the
pipeline as it exists today. To summarize, Im requiring the 5 points below in order to
receive my +1 on your proposal:
1. support for multiple pipelines
2. ability to select your pipeline in the http request -- no change to that
functionality
3. ability to have logic in pipeline, and have simple workflow caps such as have a
valve short-circuit the process as the ActionValve does
4. continue the valve concept
5. Keep the pipeline concept. This is my concept and contribution to J2. I feel its a
core piece of the Jetspeed architecture, and don't want to throw aside in the zealous
pursuit of COP.
Finally, XML configurations can be changed at runtime, and edited by UI tools.
Of course groovy scripts can be editing at runtime too. Im just weighing the
advantages of one editing a script for workflow controls over using a UI Editor. IMO,
I think editing a groovy script may be more appropriate for Jetspeed's main pipeline
since the script can support any logic that groovy supports, flow control, conditional
execution, makes for nice workflow but requires some programming knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
View this comment:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JS2-61?page=comments#action_35775
---------------------------------------------------------------------
View the issue:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JS2-61
Here is an overview of the issue:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JS2-61
Summary: Move pipeline assembly out of XML and into jetspeed.groovy assembly
Type: Task
Status: Open
Priority: Major
Project: Jetspeed 2
Components:
Other
Versions:
2.0-a1
Assignee: Scott T Weaver
Reporter: Scott T Weaver
Created: Fri, 28 May 2004 8:14 AM
Updated: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:58 AM
Description:
Having the pipeline's valve assembly defined within an XML smells funny as it is
describing "guts" (i.e. class names) with in a configuration script instead of
assembly. Moving this into jetspeed.groovy AND making the JetpseedPipline extend
pico container and deploy it as a sub-container makes a whole lotta sense to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JIRA INFORMATION:
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
