cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Haul <>
Subject Re: [Flow] Preparing the vote - long!
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:50:08 GMT
On 23.Jun.2003 -- 05:30 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> on 6/22/03 5:06 AM Christian Haul wrote:
> > Although I don't like to mention it, action are dual use and by removing 
> > special support and restricting access to non-sitemap components they 
> > are completely banned. 
> Yes, that's the intention.
> > Yes, a sitemap component could refer to a regular 
> > component to do the job, but....
> I understand your concerns, expecially since you place lots of efforts
> in actions, but let me ask you a question:
> shouldn't those general actions be abstracted into general components
> that contain business logic instead of using a sitemap-specific
> behavioral contract?

Don't get me wrong, I do see that 95% of all actions will be of no use
from the flow. And I don't mind to add new entry points or even split
them up, after all, there're only a few actions worth it.

But I'm a little concerned that you say it's no problem, actions will
stay, actions will be available from flow, just need to look them up
as normal components. At the same time you want to require a split
between two types of components and accidently rendering everything
else you said invalid.

> By imposing a constraint, there will be a need to refactor those actions
> out and clean them up.
> If we have a callAction() method, people will lazily use that and that
> business-logic orientation refactoring will never happen.

So what? If someone is reluctant to use flow or just wants to
experiment with it, it should be as easy as possible IMHO. Having a
way to call your "legacy" actions makes it easy. If the person then
starts liking flow, the person will switch. I believe in evolution
here, therefore I believe that flow will actually profit and attract
more users if they can smoothly start using it.

I'm doing this for pure fun -- I have no investments to protect so
I'll be happy either way. But I believe this course might cause more
harm than to allow this little impurity would do.

C h r i s t i a n       H a u l
    fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837  7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08

View raw message