This would probably be easiest to use as an attribute of <call-simple-method/> e.g. <call-simple-method scope="true"/> --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David, > > I've created in Minilang an element <call-simple-method-scoped> that > very closely mimics > <call-service>. In fact, CallSimpleMethodScoped.java is very similar > to CallService.java. > > The change is purely additive. > > Is that advisable? > > Jonathon > > Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > > David, > > > > Ok, thanks. I'll do something about this, then let you guys decide > how > > to phrase it on Jira and possibly commit it if you'd like. > > > > Jonathon > > > > David E Jones wrote: > >> > >> It would have to be an option specified in an attribute or > something. > >> Most of the code that uses this expects it to be an in-line call > and > >> share the same scope, basically running as if the code were > inserted > >> where the call-simple-method tag is. > >> > >> Changing the default behavior would break a lot of stuff, so we > won't > >> be doing that. Adding an option to run in a separate scope is fine > > >> (the MapStack in OFBiz used by the Screen Widget and other things > is > >> helpful for this). > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >>> Does <call-simple-method> call a simple-method that has private > scope > >>> and local variables? I gather not. > >>> > >>> If not, is it alright to do so? I don't mind submitting the code > for > >>> this. > >>> > >>> Yes, I understand that services are the right way to go. But if > it's > >>> not too much trouble, do we mind adding private scope and local > >>> variables to simple-methods called via <call-simple-method>? Any > >>> repercussions? > >>> > >>> Jonathon > >> > >> > > > > > >
