cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Use of flowscript or the pyramid of contracts (was Re:[RT] Checked exceptions considered harmful)
Date Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:45:44 GMT
Leszek Gawron wrote:

> 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.

See? *this* is what I'm talking about.

Now we made it easier to write flowscript than to write components, now 
we have to focus on making it easier to write components than flowscript.

How?

Chris' magic compiler classloader is the way to go, IMHO.

Given a choice, people would like to use eclipse for their business 
logic, I'm sure, give them autocompletion and autoreload and logic will 
start floating from flow to components.

keep in mind that with real blocks any class is a component, so no 
reason to implement the avalon lifecycle if you don't want to.

-- 
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message