cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <>
Subject Re: Flow or actions?
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:52:16 GMT
On 15.01.2004 18:48, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>>>>>>> BTW, what about my suggested FlowScriptSelector?


>>> Not as I remember the discussion, no...
>>>  From the top of my head the main idea was to not have the calls to
>>> publishing pipelines hidden in the flowScripts, but rather
>>> letting the
>>> flowScripts return some 'state' that could include the
>>> continution-point
>>> based on that returned state the flow-selector would then be
>>> visibly in
>>> the sitemap be doing the selction of the pipeline
>>> a better name would probably be the FlowScriptResultSelector :-)
>>> the main drive was to decouple the flowscipt-functions from
>>> the sitemap
>>> that calls them: if they would return some code upon which to
>>> select the
>>> coupling would be less tight and reuse higher...
>>> making sense? other interpretations of the discussion?

These have been exactly my thoughts, Marc, so 1000 points to you :)

>> Wow, this seems completely upside down to me! We've been using flow
>> script to purely drive flow, the sitemap to purely generate content and
>> Java classes called by the flow to drive business logic.  Adding flow
>> decisions back to the sitemap seems to remove the "flow" out of flow?
>> Yes, perhaps you can get a more generic flow controller, but you do so
>> at the expense of a less generic sitemap.  What's the point?  I prefer
>> to have _all_ my flow logic in one spot: the flow controller...

Indeed, Peter, it's a completely different concept and - even if it were 
better - we won't implement it. The thoughts were tied to the old 
sitemap. You have the whole application in one file. I did see the flow 
only as action replacement and wanted to control the sitemap flow (i.e. 
pipeline selection) in the sitemap. In the meantime I have changed my 
opinion. The clearer SoC is a good and important point.

With the question above I only wanted to provoke a reaction by the man 
on the whiteboard but he didn't say more than this one word:

> Amen.

BTW, what exactly does this mean, what are the shades and nuances of 
"Amen"? Is it complete agreement, nothing to add?


View raw message