cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Upayavira" ...@upaya.co.uk>
Subject Re: [Flow] Preparing the vote - long!
Date Sun, 22 Jun 2003 06:56:28 GMT
On 22 Jun 2003 at 8:56, Steven Noels wrote:

> On 22/06/2003 6:01 Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> > Both actions and input/output modules were created to overcome
> > sitemap programmability limitations. Flow doesn't have those
> > limitations anymore so i don't see the reason to keep those
> > artifacts here.
> > 
> > What do others think about this?
> 
> I think the current community and mindshare behind flow is still too
> small to already start deprecating 'old-fashioned hacks' which were
> and still are being (ab)used a lot for the same reasons flow will be
> (ab)used for. Also, the continuations thing appears to be only one
> possible way to address the webapp dev paradigm. I don't think you are
> suggesting an active depreciation, but suggestions like the one above
> seem rather tendencious and suggestive IMHO.
> 
> OK, it is only a small quote lifted out of context, but it is a good
> illustration of my worry that flow, being a very interesting approach,
> still is _only_just_one_ approach to attack the given problem domain.
> As much as I'm genuinely interested in continuation-based flow, I
> think flow needs some more real-world usage (like Pier's case) before
> we consider it being part of the core features of Cocoon (on the same
> level of 'streamlined XML processing' and 'the sitemap'). I read the
> above statement as a suggestion into that direction.
> 
> If I say 'core', I mean the kind of stuff which you _have_ to use if
> you want to use Cocoon, not the 'blocks vs core' discussion, or 'it
> has an impact on the sitemap grammar'. I'm pretty sure that you don't
> want to see flow added to Cocoon with people openly saying 'ok', but
> silently thinking 'whatever, I'm going to stick to my way anyhow'.
> 
> Oh. Do please read this as a neutral observation, will you? I'm not
> into flames. If I'm wrong with my observation, just say so and I'll
> withdraw to my cave. ;-)

Just to clarify - Stefano was only suggesting removing input/output modules from 
FOM, not Cocoon or the sitemap (where they are appropriate). 

Do your comments still stand?

Regards, Upayavira

Mime
View raw message