cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: Flow wishlist :)
Date Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:57:21 GMT
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> -1 business logic
> +1 flow logic
> I think one of the reasons I got so uptight about flow was the misuse of 
> the term business logic.  Business logic is the big stuff you do 
> backended just before it goes to the database.  Such as debiting a 
> customer's account and crediting sales.  Workflow logic is still 
> presentation logic.  Such as "Gee he just pushed 'preview' on the 
> 'design card for my girlfriend' page, lets make sure he didn't leave and 
> fields blank and if he did, send him back with an error, otherwise send 
> him to the preview greeting page". . Thats not business logic.

Totally agree.

We can't stop people from abusing the flow, but we can make it *harder 
than ever* to write complex stuff in the flow (because the object model 
will be very limiting) and easier than ever to delegate complex logic to 
the java objects (for example, the Cocoon object exposes the avalon 
component manager).

> Sticking business logic (like connection to EIS systems and crediting 
> and debiting accounts should not be done in flow).  Perhaps pushing the 
> FLOW to go to things that DO that should, but not that actual stuff...
>> why should they have to be in sync? it might be a totally different
>> flow.. If we could read the flowscript from an internal pipeline we
>> would be set.
>> <map:flow language="JavaScript">
>>   <map:script src="cocoon://something/prefs.js"/>
>> </map:flow>
> Yes this is an absolute must.

Hmmm, no, it's not a must. It might lead to severe sitemap abuse. We 
must think more about this.

> sticking it all in a monolitic sitemap is setting back CS by about 30 years.

Andy, before getting vocal about something, you should start to 
understand what we are talking about.

> There is nothing wrong with includes so long as they're clear.

nobody said anything about includes in the scripts. Here, we are talking 
about *how* to connect the sitemap with its flow. We have to decide 
whether or not it makes sense to have more than one flow connected to a 
single sitemap and if it makes sense to have it dynamically choosen with 
sitemap parameters or even if it makes sense to give the ability for 
cocoon pipelines to generate the script file dynamically.

> The above tells me where to find the JS.  I 
> think however it might be best constrained to the sitemap.  Meaning a JS 
> shouldn't be able to include others.  (That does introduce a limitation 
> but makes life more readible)..  But I'm not sure on this...

Discussing inclusion in the scripts is another concern. Let's work on 
one at a time.

Stefano Mazzocchi                               <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message