cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylvain.wal...@anyware-tech.com>
Subject Re: [RT] Generalizing the flow
Date Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:39:39 GMT
Christopher Oliver wrote:

> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Christopher Oliver wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Names are one of the most important things in design, since it's 
>>>> first through the names that a user goes into a set of classes. Bad 
>>>> names imply wrong understanding. Abstractions named after a 
>>>> particular implementation make other implementations look clumsy, 
>>>> since they don't fit into the name, even if they fit into the real 
>>>> underlying concept.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fine. Would you mind demonstrating at least one alternative 
>>> implementation of "FlowEngine" and "FlowController"  so that the 
>>> rest of us can make a technical assessement of how well it "fits" if 
>>> you intend to make these name changes? 
>>
>>
>> Let's simply consider the second implementation we have today : Alex 
>> Krut's ATCT implementation [1]. Interestingly, it is 
>> continuation-based, and so technically similar to the JavaScript 
>> implementation :
>> - the interpreter is not an interpreter : it runs compiled Java. 
>> Wouldn't "ATCTFlowEngine" have been better than the chosen 
>> "JavaIntepreter" ? Clumsy name engendered by a wrong name for the 
>> underlying concept.
>> - the flow functions aren't functions but classes. Interestingly, 
>> these should extend "AbstractController". Alex didn't fell into the 
>> trap of naming them "AbstractFunction".
>>
>> And this leads to the following clumsy notation : <map:call 
>> function="com.company.app.AppController"/>
>
>
> I don't know, Sylvain. The Sun JVM is also a Java interpreter and so 
> is for that matter ATCT itself.  I don't see what's so clumsy about 
> "JavaInterpreter".
>
> Also it looks to me that Alex Krut  is referring to a Java method in 
> <map:call function="run"> not a class. "Method" is another name for a 
> function, so I really don't see your point. 


My mistake, I was too quick when reading the code. You're right, it's 
actually a method that is called by reflection. But that doen't change 
my opinion : we don't call a function nor an operation : we start a flow 
instance (i.e. a continuation tree).

Sylvain (going to bed)

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance  -  http://www.orixo.com



Mime
View raw message