cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: [RT] Generalizing the flow
Date Sat, 05 Jul 2003 12:57:32 GMT
Christopher Oliver wrote:


> The problem I have with the proposed changes is that they obscure the 
> design and use of flowscript (in order to support some other 
> unspecified "flow engine", which to appears to not really have the 
> same "interface" as the flowscript engine, IMO). To try to force them 
> to use the same sitemap constructs seems unnecessary and 
> counterproductive.

First of all, the usual disclaimer, as the continuation-based flow 
script has unfortunately become a kind of religion in Cocoon : I love 
the flowscript and continuations, and I do use it for real-world 
applications. But I'd also like other "religions" to be able to exist.

Now back to the discussion...

What is the more obscure :
- "Intepreter" or "FlowEngine" ? "Interpreter" is something that 
interprets a language, and not something that drives the application flow.
- "WebContinuation" or "FlowState" ? Continuations are a particular 
implementation of a way to store the flow state.
- <map:call function> or <map:call flow> ? "function" is a related to 
entry points in a functional language. How does this relate to 
application flow ?
- <map:call continuation> or <map:call state> ? Again, "continuation" is 
a particular implementation of the flow state.

I really think the proposed changes better represent the real concepts 
behind the flow stuff rather than the current names which are more 
related to the particular implementation we have today.

What do others think ?


Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies 
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance  -

View raw message