cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <jheini...@virbus.de>
Subject Makes flow script the sitemap ugly? (was: Re: [vote] forbidding flowscripts with no sendpage redirects)
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:19:06 GMT
On 11.11.2003 15:48, Geoff Howard wrote:

> In fact, I think that flow in some cases needlessly 
> complicates the composition of a pipeline.  Now I have to have two 
> pipelines where I used to need one.  I have to have one that matches the 
> external request and calls the flow function, and another one for the 
> default result of that pipeline.

I have exactly the same feeling about the flow. I talked about exactly 
the same with Sylvain in private communication (btw: Did you ignore my 
last email or didn't you receive it, Sylvain. I sent it on the day you 
had problems with Anywhere mail to your Apache account - which is 
probably forwarded to Anywhere :-( ). In German slang I would call the 
flow "drangepappt". How can this be translated into English: The flow is 
not integrated into the sitemap very well and makes the sitemap flow 
somewhat opaque or obfusicated. How must look into the flow to 
understand what's going on in the sitemap. And if it is so why not 
integrating the flow script into the sitemap directly? No, I don't want 
to have Javascript in the sitemap, it's only a bad feeling about that. 
Especially because of the two-side dependency from sitemap to flow to 
sitemap.

> So far this has felt like needless 
> additional complexity to me (and I think will to others).
> 
> To try to make this point a little clearer:
> Part of the beauty of the sitemap prior to flow was that you could at a 
> glance see what each request url was triggering.  Now, I look at the 
> sitemap, have to locate the flowscript, parse through it for the various 
> sendPage etc. and then back to the sitemap to find where the action 
> really happens.  This could perhaps be handled with some best practice 
> naming conventions.  Perhaps a practice of passing in the various 
> possible view uris to the flowscript should be considered.  I don't know.

Naming conventions is to weak to handle this IMHO.

> I'm not negative on flow, and not positive on actions - just pointing 
> out a loss of readability of the sitemap that has resulted from our move 
> forward.

I can not be negative on flow, because I don't have participated in flow 
discussions at that time. But it's my bad feeling about this stuff.

Any comments or flames ;-)

Joerg


Mime
View raw message