On May 16, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Henri Dupre wrote:
On 5/16/05, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My other impression is that this will heavily overlap Spring Web Flow or
other similar technologies, and perhaps what we need is to properly wrap
such a library, rather than reinvent it inside Tapestry.
I completly second that. Spring Web Flow seems to be getting more and more popular and also has now a nice set of tools. MindBridge, have you looked at SWF? transitions should be part of a web flow. I agree with you that aspect stuff wouldn't be really good, it would make the framework too difficult to understand.
Folks - don't let the word "aspect" cause alarm. With HiveMind and Tapestry 4.0, there is tons of it already going on! By "aspect", I mean technically a way to add behavior before/after/around some service (like the invocation of a listener). No particular technology is implied, but Howard has already made the listener invocation hookable in an aspect-oriented way in 4.0 with some HiveMind magic.
Erik
IMO if there is a web flow involved, the link and form components should be different because the flow will introduce a new logic. After looking at the spring web flow, I think that these special components shouldn't have any listener (what you would write as the listener method should be inside the webflow framework). Also the flow id should be carried by these components... I don't think it would require much work to implement SWF but it is not straightforward to map the concepts to Tapestry.
Henri.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
