Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> There are two ways to consider this problem.
>>>
>>> 1/ Error handling is controlled by the called pipeline
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> 2/ Error handling is controlled by the caller
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip/>
>> Ahem... Let me repeat myself as I've got no feedback:
>>
>> 3/ Error handler is called always [1]
>
>
>
> Ah, sorry I didn't understood that you were proposing that.
It was my way to object to proposed changes :)
> But isn't this also too limiting ?
First of all, it is straightforward and fare: you have handler - it's
always executed. you don't have handler - it's never executed. No
automagical stuff you were against recently. And second, it's not
limiting: you still can do what these guys were after. Remember the
principle:
Easy stuff should be easy to do, and complex stuff should be
possible to do.
(or something like this, don't remember exact wording :)
> And writing the same pipeline twice really looks like code duplication
> that we all know to be soooo bad ;-)
I feel it's not good idea to have pipeline used in both ways -
internally via cocoon protocol and externally. I think we have kind of
consensus here saying that pipelines accessed by cocoon protocol should
be internal-only="true".
Vadim
> Sylvain
>
>> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104998037007592&w=2
>
>
|