cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leszek Gawron <o...@wlkp.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Use of flowscript or the pyramid of contracts (was Re:[RT] Checked exceptions considered harmful)
Date Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:38:00 GMT
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 06:46:41PM -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Guido Casper dijo:
> >> I think that cocoon.getComponent(role) would be enough if writing those
> >> components would be as painless as writing flowscript. No need for more
> >> complex stuff.
> >
> > I don't think developers aren't eager to write reusable components. But
> > currently it's just that hard to come up with components really making
> > the user's life easier.
> 
> Yep. One of the things that refrained us to write components is the too
> much overhead they have:
> 
> 1-Implementations of the lifecycle: Configurable, composable, etc.
> 2-The (1) give you even more code to write based on the implementations
> you choosed in (1).
> 
> And people just want to write a simple hello wold component. The question
> is how much lines I need to write. And when we realize it is more than 20
> lines. We are lost. It is really the better way to do things?
> 
> I think the key is in KISS. The Flow Engine is so popular because of his
> own simplicity. And that is cool.
> 
> I realize that components are a diferents than FlowEngine scripts. But I
> try to sell the concept of easy components writing is what the users need.
> An alert is already out: People is starting to (ab)use of FlowEngine code
> because they feel it is easier to write the full logic on FlowEngine
> instead of writing a component. I think we need think about this fact. On
> the mail list are clear samples of how they are even making workarounds to
> make things works in Flow at any cost, even when using a component will be
> easier (you have full access to many thins and in flow you have not the
> same access). But the perception win in this case.
> 
> Components are existed before Flow, but Flow is more popular than writing
> components, the question is why?
flowscript + notepad vs. components + eclipse. and the winner concerning
development lifecycle time is: flowscript.
Flowscript is:
  a) scripted
  b) automatically reloaded by cocoon after changes without container restart.

> I will add I will prefer to change the default FlowEngine language from
> javascript to Groovy. I really believe it will give the user a more
> productive language with the best Java integration. It will be really a
> good tradeoff.
What does groovy have that flowscript lacks? For generators it would be much
better than XSP but I do not see a value added when talking about flowscript -
just another syntax.
  a) you do not have a groovy editor (with autocompletion)
  b) you cannot check your script for typos before running 
Those are two most irritating things in my experience with JS flowscript
	lg
-- 
            __
         | /  \ |        Leszek Gawron            //  \\
        \_\\  //_/       ouzo@wlkp.org           _\\()//_
         .'/()\'.     Phone: +48(501)720812     / //  \\ \
          \\  //  recursive: adj; see recursive  | \__/ |


Mime
View raw message