cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Improving Sitemap and Flowscript
Date Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:43:54 GMT

On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:10 Europe/Rome, Christian Haul wrote:

> On 23.Aug.2003 -- 03:48 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 10:17 Europe/Rome, Christian Haul wrote:
>>
>>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 22:41 Europe/Rome, Christian Haul 
>>>> wrote:
>
>> I'm not suggesting we add AOP to Rhino, I'm suggesting we add the
>> ability to avoid concern crosscutting in the cocoon flow.
>
> After reading Nicola Ken's message I believe this discussion is void
> but I still would like to explain my position as it appears it hasn't
> been clear enough.
>
> I've started using flow very shortly after the javascript incarnation
> arrived and I love flow. That is 1+ years using flow. I believed that
> adding AOP to Rhino (which happens to be the javascript engine in
> Cocoon) is beyond the scope of this project. Now you explained you
> don't want to do that but only add it to the invokation of flow
> functions. I believe that is a poor solution and does not provide
> enough usefulness to solve any of your examples but the authorization
> one.

I can hardly disagree more. When you have function interception you 
have all you need to implement layers of invocation (and some people 
call those layers "aspects", but I don't). This solves all the issues I 
previously listed (including, yes, AAA).

> However, as I said above, after reading Nicola Ken's mail I believe
> this dicussion is void because it appears AOP in javascript is as easy
> as saying "aspect". In addition, I believe his proposal for aspects in
> the sitemap is balanced and very interesting. We should follow this
> idea further.

I think we are talking about two different things here.

One thing is layering flow, another thing is layering pipeline 
definitions.

If you allow me to remove actions from the picture just one second, 
you'll see how layering pipeline definitions might allow you to 
simplify (or ease reuse) of pipeline definition fragments, but you also 
understand how this is not going to help you on things that touch 
resource flow rather than resource production.

In a sense, resource views and virtual components already provide 
pipeline layering.

I would like Nicola to update its RT on aspectizing the sitemap after 
the introduction of virtual components (which, IMO, solve most of the 
issues he outlined). What is not covered, IMO, can be implemented by 
extending the view concept.

Note: I stay away from the name "aspect" because it's a overhyped 
concept and too blurry to be used as a meaningful terminology because 
it means different things to anybody.

--
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message