Ralph Goers wrote:
> It may not matter much, but I'd prefer to see examples of this without flow.
> With flow you could just degenerate into a map:call for input and a map:call
> for output, or perhaps a map:call that does both?
Take a look at my answer to Bertrands post. In that example you coul
remove the map:call, or maybe use a select between the input and the
output part of the pipeline.
/Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacretaz@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:46 AM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RT] Cocoon Input Model
>
> Le Mercredi, 25 fév 2004, à 16:49 Europe/Zurich, Daniel Fagerstrom a
> écrit :
>
> <snip-plenty-of-good-stuff/>
>
>>...But in many cases using SAX based XML as in pipelines is not enough
>>we need a data structure i.e. DOM. This leads to flowscript components
>>that reads some input format to DOM and from DOM to some output format
>>or some store. We also will need flowscript components that go from
>>DOM to DOM...
>
>
> Just trying to understand from a practical point of view, does this
> mean something like
>
> <map:generate type="request"/>
> <map:transform src="prepare-query-for-user-preferences"/>
> <map:transform type="sql"/>
> <map:call function="myFlow()" dom-input="domIn"/>
>
> At which point myFlow() is called with a "domIn" variable containing
> the current pipeline XML as a DOM?
>
> And maybe the opposite:
> <map:call function="myFlow()" dom-output="domOut"/>
> meaning that myFlow() is expected to write a DOM structure to domOut
> for insertion in the pipeline?
>
> -Bertrand
|