Christian Haul wrote:
>
> On 10.Sep.2002 -- 11:19 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> > This said, I'm entirely in favor of making it as simple as possible to
> > call actions from the flow layer or viceversa (even if I don't know
> > how). Just understand that in order to have continuations, we ne
On 10.Sep.2002 -- 11:19 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> This said, I'm entirely in favor of making it as simple as possible to
> call actions from the flow layer or viceversa (even if I don't know
> how). Just understand that in order to have continuations, we need an
> interpretation layer on to
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
>
> I have been following along the thread silently trying to finally "get" the
> picture.
>
> At this point, the only reasonable question that I can ask is,
> if it is possible to consider providing the continuation capabilities within
> the Actions instead of promoting Jav
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 05:41 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I know it would be easier *right now* to name it 'controller' and
> >> forget
> >> about all the above, but I ask you to think in 5 years from now, then
>
Hi Sylvain,
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Christopher Oliver wrote:
>
> >Hi Ivelin,
> >
> >Actually I believe it is possible to have continuations in pure Java --
> >using bytecode rewriting -- however this approach is quite intrusive and its
> >effect on performance and code-size is not insignificant
with one specific form and the flow
associated with it is relatively simple.
Thoughts?
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: [control flow]
On 9 Sep 2002 at 21:20, Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
> ...
> At this point, the only reasonable question that I can ask is,
> if it is possible to consider providing the continuation capabilities within
> the Actions instead of promoting JavaScript as another language supported by
> Cocoon.
> ...
I have
Christopher Oliver wrote:
>Hi Ivelin,
>
>Actually I believe it is possible to have continuations in pure Java --
>using bytecode rewriting -- however this approach is quite intrusive and its
>effect on performance and code-size is not insignificant (see:
>http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~tim/MOS/bra
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [control flow] changes and new sample
I have been following along the thread silently trying to finally "get" the
picture.
At this point, the only reasonable question that I can ask is,
if it is possible to consider providing the continuation ca
On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 05:41 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>
>
>> I know it would be easier *right now* to name it 'controller' and
>> forget
>> about all the above, but I ask you to think in 5 years from now, then
>> place your vote.
>>
>> I vote for .
>>
>
ntrol within my actions.
I hope to learn more from this thread.
Cheers,
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [control flow] changes and new sample
> I'
I'm a newcomer to cocoon, but would be inclined to agree with Stefano
that flows are more generalised concept than an mvc controller. There
are ways of using flows that have very little to do with mvc. So,
assuming anyone can vote on these things :-) +1 for map:flow
Simon
>
> I vote for .
>
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>I know it would be easier *right now* to name it 'controller' and forget
>about all the above, but I ask you to think in 5 years from now, then
>place your vote.
>
>I vote for .
>
>
Lots of good arguments, the main one being that continuations have a
broader usage
> From: Giacomo Pati [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > Per-Olof Norén wrote:
> >
> > > So the the controller is defined and used as the following?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +1 on that. S
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Per-Olof Norén wrote:
>
> > So the the controller is defined and used as the following?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +1 on that. Seems to me the overall usage will be the same.
>
> Call me picky, but I have a
> c) the flow cannot only work as a controller but can work as a
> procedural way to map any transition-part of a FSM. This includes
> workflows and might include distributed web services.
isn't this a controller in any way?
> I know it would be easier *right now* to name it 'controller' and
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>
> So, to resume, this is my proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
+1 if we do not use the 'flow' attribute in to specify the flow
script explicitely and concider that scripts together are the 'Flow layer'
or the 'control
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
...
> I know it would be easier *right now* to name it 'controller' and forget
> about all the above, but I ask you to think in 5 years from now, then
> place your vote.
I abstain, since I couldn't care less about the name.
Just that map:flow has
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> I like very much this as it's the name used
> traditionnaly in the MVC pattern. Cocoon shouldn't invent a new word
> (map:flow) to designate a well-known concept. MVC is much hyped and is a
> "magic word" for many customers (see how many of them want Struts
> because it's
Per-Olof Norén wrote:
> So the the controller is defined and used as the following?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +1 on that. Seems to me the overall usage will be the same.
Call me picky, but I have a few issues with the above.
1) is clearly MVC-oriented. I find this inco
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> Christopher Oliver sent me a patch for enabling Velocity as the View
> layer. I need to get back to it one of these days. I'll post it on the
> mailing list shortly, maybe somebody else has the time to work on it.
Please do.
> As you say, this is just an example. One co
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>>> Actually I now realize that declaring flow scripts this way,
>>> interferes with Vadim's proposal on using to invoke a
>>> function or restart a continuation. Can we
On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>> Stefano, Vadim,
>>
>> On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:09 PM, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>>
>>> I remember this being discussed some time ago. I think the ability
>>> to describe multiple flows in on
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>> Stefano, Vadim,
...
>> Actually I now realize that declaring flow scripts this way,
>> interferes with Vadim's proposal on using to invoke a
>> function or restart a continuation. Can we find a better name for
>> in this context? I was th
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> Stefano, Vadim,
>
> On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:09 PM, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>>> 2) is the 'flow' really a ?
>>>
>>> I don't think so. A flow is a flow. This calls for a more explicit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> language="scheme"/>
>>>
>>>
>>> which allows:
Hello
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> Hi Ramy,
>
> On Friday, September 6, 2002, at 11:02 AM, Ramy Mamdouh wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Being working on a project that uses the Control Flow extensively,
>> made me a big fan of this great piece of software.
>
>
> This is great! Please do let me know if you
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> Stefano, Vadim,
>
> On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:09 PM, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>>> 2) is the 'flow' really a ?
>>>
>>> I don't think so. A flow is a flow. This calls for a more explicit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> language="scheme"/>
>>>
>>>
>>> which allows:
Stefano, Vadim,
On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:09 PM, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>> 2) is the 'flow' really a ?
>>
>> I don't think so. A flow is a flow. This calls for a more explicit:
>>
>>
>>
>> > language="scheme"/>
>>
>>
>> which allows:
>>
>> - to declare more scripts (this ea
On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 04:47 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> [lots of good stuff removed]
>
>> In a perfect world,
>> XSP should have only one logicsheet, the JXPath logicsheet. There
>> should be no other things in an XSP page that put logic in the page
>>
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
[lots of good stuff removed]
> In a perfect world,
> XSP should have only one logicsheet, the JXPath logicsheet. There
> should be no other things in an XSP page that put logic in the page
> (read View), instead of the Model. If you don't like XSP, and prefer to
> use JSP
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>[lots of good stuff removed]
>
>
>
>>In a perfect world,
>>XSP should have only one logicsheet, the JXPath logicsheet. There
>>should be no other things in an XSP page that put logic in the page
>>(read View), instead of the Model. If you don'
Hi Ramy,
On Friday, September 6, 2002, at 11:02 AM, Ramy Mamdouh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Being working on a project that uses the Control Flow extensively,
> made me a big fan of this great piece of software.
This is great! Please do let me know if you encounter any problems with
it.
> However,
Hello,
Being working on a project that uses the Control Flow extensively, made
me a big fan of this great piece of software.
However, I have some comments here :
1- sendPage() and the cocoon:/ protocol :
As I stated before, why the enforcement of using the "cocoon:/" protocol
inside AbstractI
33 matches
Mail list logo
