Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <40837948.2010706@dds.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:01:28 +0200
From: Leon Widdershoven <qaz@dds.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040319)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: OT: [RT] Use of flowscript or the pyramid of contracts
References: <408103CA.105@s-und-n.de> <4081A3B8.1060303@apache.org>
      <4081A615.7060805@apache.org> <4082BF8E.5050608@s-und-n.de>
 <42368.10.0.0.5.1082335601.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <42368.10.0.0.5.1082335601.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I, as a user, do not differentiate between Components and utility
classes and functions. I think that when a cocoon developer hears
Component, (s)he thinks of classes which obey some sort of contract
by implementing an interface.

If I, as a user, think of a component it is a part that does
something and is easily integrated into the flowscript.

And example for Javascript flowscript is of course woody.js. This
integrates fabulously with flowscript.

Unfortunately, the same does not hold for database actions. As
I user, I could not find a way to access databases without
just using the classes from java.sql, though I did manage
to get a Connection from the pool from the manager.
As a *hacker* I used parts of the samples plock (PetStore);
the sample block contains an excellent module, part of the
petstore, to access databases and represent resultsets.

And what I'm wondering is why such a usefull component
for an example is part of -of all things - an example
block in stead of an optional JavaScript/Database block.

I have the feeling that people might be more willing to make
components for flowscript (and the same would probably hold
for other flow languages) if components did not look so
application specific. I use Dababase.js; but the sources
are part of the samples, so I for one have the feeling
it is a totally unsupported module.

In short, I think existing components could be more clearly
presented as components for re-use. I have the feeling there
are quite a lot of usefull components 'out there', but it's
hard to get a list of the available modules for flowscript.
In contrast, it's quite easy to get such a list for xsp, which
is why a lot of people just use xsp even when flowscript would
be better suited.

That was my optinion. I do not own asbestos underware but I
*can* duck.

Leon