From: Sylvain Wallez > Andrzej Jan Taramina wrote: > > <snip/> > > >Then I have a pipeline that looks like this, to actually execute the > >flowscript and save the output of a particular pipeline: > > > ><map:pipeline> > > <map:match pattern="saveFile.html"> > > <map:call function="saveToFile"/> > > <map:select type="request-attribute"> > > <map:parameter name="attribute-name" > value="centralPrint.status"/> > > <map:when test="success"> > > <!-- Do something useful here, > since the saveToFile succeeded --> > > ..... > > </map:when> > > <map:otherwise> > > <map:read > src="html/saveToFileFailed.html" mime-type="text/html"/> > > </map:otherwise> > > </map:select> > > </map:match> > ></map:pipeline> > > > > > > Mmmh... careful here : you're relying on a unspecified behaviour that > allows a flow script to not send a page. And we still have to > decide if > this allowed or not. > > From my point of view, this should not be allowed.
same from here. I have a very strange feeling because we mix concerns ... > And for > this kind of > purpose, I would better go for a "flowscript-action" that > calls a script > function that returns parameters to the sitemap but which is > not allowed > to create a continuation. what's the usecase for this? isn't sendPage() good enough? > > I also just checked in a new CopySourceAction that has been > in use for > ages in one of my projects. It doesn't create a temp file, > but allows to > copy any source (including, but not restricted to, cocoon:) to any > ModifiableSource : > <map:act type="copy-source" src="cocoon://pipeline.xml"> > <map:parameter name="dest" > value="context://WEB-INF/data/file.xml"/> > </map:act> nice, really nice! -- Reinhard --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
