On 5/17/05, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, please note that SWF does not support call transitions at the > moment. That cannot be done well without URL generation and client-side > information storage as the stack needs to go in the URL as well -- > something that Tapestry has now more or less, but earlier versions did > not, and most other frameworks do not either at the moment. Subflows > are pretty much like functions without a stack. Earlier programming > languages used to have them, but that is now passe, and a currently used > languages cannot afford to lack a stack.
You define call transitions by "special type of transitions that allow you to invoke a particular page and then return back from it with results". That can be represented by a web flow. But there won't be any mechanism inside the web flow to handle the state and retrieve the parameters of that particular page. It seems to be that this state shouldn't be too difficult to handle with the new tapestry "persist" feature and I'm wondering if building that handling into the framework wouldn't be too heavy weight and complex to use. All the feature you mention seem to really fall into the webflow stuff. They would be all very usefull but I'm a little scared of the complexity behind them. I'd rather like to have at first basic webflow functionalities to replace the cycle.activate() calls. > Call transitions are absolutely necessary for local (rather than global) > configuration, in particular being able package functionality into small > libraries. Wtih SFW that is not entirely possible. (btw local-vs-global > is an argument similar to choosing HiveMind over Spring). I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to define a web flow inside another one with SWF. But I'm not sure to understand you here. > Another issue: developers prefer to develop pages instead of components > because the component needs to generate links that go to particular > locations depending on the page it is in. So concepts like 'transitions > as parameter', or even 'transition namespaces' are needed to handle > that. Can SWF do that? No I don't think so but I bet SWF is going to evolve fast and given the buzz around SWF, I think developer really need it. > I do think that a clean Java machanism for performing transitions is > very necessary and the current 'cycle.activate()' is just a temporary > measure. I believe Howards also discussed this a little bit as well. > That would also make things like WebFlow quite possible. I just do not > think if is sifficient and it does not use all the power that Tapestry > offers. That's true but even adding a web flow in the framework creates IMO a fair amount more of complexity for a beginner. What I like with SWF, is that it is very basic and simple, has documentation, tutorials and graphical tools => Easy to understand and use for a newbie. Learning Tapestry is already quite a learning curve and if people have to deal with Web Flow concepts inside the framework, I think it might be too much. Even though modularity, componentization are coming very slowly on the web site of things, most developers tend to still think about web pages as simple php, sequential stuff (that's also what they usually taught at school). Henri. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
