cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <reinhard_po...@gmx.net>
Subject RE: [Vote] Controller/Sitemap integration
Date Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:11:11 GMT

From: Stephan Michels [mailto:stephan@apache.org] 

> A: V1

Why do you want implementation details in the element:
<map:flows>
  ...
  <map:flow name="java" type="atct" class="org.apache.cocoon...."/>  
  <map:flow name="fsm" type="fsm" src="descriptors/fsm.xml"/> 
  ---
</map:flows>

I don't think that class or src should be attributes of <map:flow/>. It
should go into the configuration, shouldn't it?

> B: V2
> C: V1 with flow instead of type

to use the flow attribute to determine which implementation is used 
doesn't make really sense to me. Everywhere else the type attribute
is used. I would use the flow attribute to give the flow processor a
hint
where he should look for the implementation (either to initialize a
new flow or to continue an existing one).
See B:V5 and C:C7

> 
> D: V2
> E: V2
> 
> BTW, I think it too early to vote on this. If I must decide 
> now, all will be carved in stone. I think we should leave A-C 
> as it is for 2.1. And postpone the discussion to the 
> post-2.1-era. For my part, I must have first two 
> implementations to find more generalized contract, which we 
> don't have at this point.
> 
> So my vote would like:
> Should we postpone the generalisation to the post-2.1-era,
> and hazard with the consequences, that we maybe change the 
> sitemap syntax of a released version of Cocoon?

I think the changes from A to D make sense. For me the big 
arguement for generalizing the element names in the sitemap
is not the second implementation but to give people outside
of the Cocoon repository within their own projects the chance 
to integrate their controllers without having to write a 
wrapper within the existing JS interpreter.

So if we find a consensus on A to D we should do the changes.

Cheers,
Reinhard


Mime
View raw message