cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Reinhard Poetz" <>
Subject RE: Saving pipeline output to a temp file...everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask!
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:59:15 GMT

From: Sylvain Wallez

> Andrzej Jan Taramina wrote:
> >>What do you think of the CopySourceAction I've added (see 
> [1])? Doing 
> >>the equivalent of your saveToFile.flow should be pretty trivial, no?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >It's not a bad idea, except that I still will need to use 
> flowscript to 
> >fire off a .vbs script that prints the document....or need 
> to write a custom action to do that, which I would rather not 
> do at the moment, deadlines looming and all that.
> >  
> >
> Why do you need flowscript to fire a vb script? It should be 
> possible to 
> do it in Java, and the action code should not be far from a 
> cut'n paste 
> of the flowscript code.
> >>Congrats for your project. But I really think this unspecified 
> >>behaviour you're using is not the good way to go. So let's 
> keep it as is in the upcoming 2.1.3 and forbid it in 2.1.4.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Why forbid it?  I see no reason to elminate such a useful feature, 
> >unspecified or otherwise.
> >  
> >
> There's been a discussion about this, and we agreed on the 
> fact that he 
> semantics of <map:call function> and <map:call> continuation implied 
> that it _must_ redirect somewhere using sendPage, sendPageAndWait or 
> redirectTo.
> The semantics you would like is the one of an action. I 
> proposed to add 
> a "flowscript action" that would share function and global variable 
> scopes with the flowscript but have the appropriate contract of 
> returning a Map of values to the sitemap.
> So the flowscript call semantics will be strengthened in the 2.1.4 to 
> avoid abuses of this unspecified behaviour. And the fact that you 
> already rely on this behaviour shows that we must correct 
> things quickly.
> If it was only me, we would forbid it ASAP for the 2.1.3 
> release. What 
> do others think?

With me we are already two ...

I don't like this behaviour and we never agreed on this. So here my +1
to remove this behaviour for the 2.1.3 release.


View raw message