cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: Flow or actions?
Date Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:39 GMT

On 15 Jan 2004, at 19:52, Joerg Heinicke wrote:

> 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?

The man on the whiteboard got stuck in the middle of a big thing that 
he will announce on monday, hopefully.

Amen means that I agree that concerns should be kept separate.

The answer of the men on the whiteboard was "no answer, so go right 

Joerg, if you want to resort the discussion, I think it would be a good 
thing... I won't have time to deeply participate in the next few weeks, 
as you will understand on monday.


View raw message