cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Quinn <>
Subject Re: [Flow] Status
Date Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:14:18 GMT

On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Reinhard Pötz wrote:

> As promised here a summary of the current status.
> So if somebody wants to take an issue feel free to change

Many thanks for your summary.

Does anyone object to me adding my recent RT on how parameters are 
passed to FlowScript functions to this list? (I would not like it to 
block anything, but I would like it to be considered).

Basically, we have named parameters in the SiteMap, but loose that 
naming when the parameters arrive at the function, relying instead on 
the *order* of the parameters in the Sitemap. Named parameters should 
not be order-dependant IMHO.

I find this most unpleasant!

I reduce the problem on my own projects by only having one function 
where the order of parameters is assumed .....

<map:match pattern="*/*/*">
   <map:call function="main">
   <map:parameter name="action" value="{1}"/>
   <map:parameter name="type" value="{2}"/>
   <map:parameter name="id" value="{3}"/>
   <map:parameter name="uri" value="{0}"/>

function main(action) {
   // these arguments must be kept in sync with the SiteMap params
   var args = {
     action : arguments[0],
     type : arguments[1],
     id : arguments[2],
     uri : arguments[3],
     klass : Beans[arguments[1].toUpperCase()]
   if (user == null) {
     if (!login(args)) {

function invoke(args) {
   func = this[args[0].action];
   if (func != undefined) {
   } else {

// this function does not need to be kept in sync with the order of 
params in the sitemap
function mySpecificAction (args) {
   doSomethingWith( args.type );

This IMHO is only a temporary solution.

What do you think?

regards Jeremy

View raw message