Return-Path: 
 <cocoon-dev-return-39507-apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91807 invoked by uid 500); 31 Mar 2003 09:32:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91794 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 09:32:15 -0000
Received: from nebula.mpn.com (194.72.64.30)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 09:32:15 -0000
Delivered-To: <<cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>>
Received: from [10.11.155.40] (tashayarr-ext.vnu.co.uk [193.117.79.10])
	by nebula.mpn.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01416
	for <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:26 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Polishing the flow contracts
From: Pier Fumagalli <pier@betaversion.org>
To: <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Message-ID: <BAADCA4F.EB49%pier@betaversion.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E88058B.6010009@apache.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

"Stefano Mazzocchi" <stefano@apache.org> wrote:

<skip reason="mutual agreement"/>

>> "Flow" in my mind is the whole kit and caboodles: it's the "Cocoon Flow", a
>> set of API to do something.
>> 
>> The "Flow" in my mind is made up by:
>> - "Cocoon", an interface to talk to the cocoon internals
>> - "Log" the logging facility
>> - "Interpreter" whatever executes our script
>> - Other objects (such as "Continuation") which instances we can get from the
>>   three above mentioned instances...
>> 
>> "Flow" is tha package (IDL module), "Interpreter" is the connection to the
>> scripting engine...
> 
> Yes, I see your point, but 'flow' in my mind is the instance of the
> entire concept that handles my flow. So
> 
> flow.import()
> 
> means that I'm adding another information to my flow. The fact that this
> flow is implemented with a javascript interpreter is, in fact, unimportant.
> 
> Suppose future allows us to write the flow directly in java and that a
> future JSR adds continuations as native objects in java: would it be
> sane to call
> 
> interpreter.import()
> 
> at that point?
> 
> Flow is totally abstracted already, as a concept, from the underlying
> implementation and the semantics of our FOM should keep suggesting that.

If I agree that the concept of "import" means "something that is being added
to my flow" wouldn't it make more sense to have "this.import()" ???

I import another source file into THIS object (my script).

(Just thinking out loud randomly as I really have a bad taste when saying
"flow.import()")

<offtopic>

>> Use Entourage or Apple Mail on your OS/X box! :-) :-) :-)
> 
> I'm sooooo used to mozmail shortcuts... and spam filtering works so well
> and you don't allow me to install spambayes on pulse! :(

Entourage does it as well...

> but there is hope: they are workign on a stripped-down version of
> mozmail to go along with phoenix/camino... hopefully with native widgets
> instead of that super-heavy XUL stuff.

That would be kute! :-)

> besides, I think it's not a problem with mozmail but my stupid router
> that cuts my connections... but hopefully I'm going to be out of here soon.

Don't tell me... Every time I look at netstat I see all your connections in
CLOSE_WAIT forever! :-)

</offtopic>

    Pier