cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BURGHARD √Čric <eric.burgh...@systheo.com>
Subject Re: sitemap, jx and flow design (was: servicemanager and jxtg)
Date Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:31:11 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:

> I have never disputed that things might be clumsy now, I just think we
> should focus on getting the flowscript way better, instead of adding
> things that makes the sitemap more of a programming language, by

So how could you propose to add some kind of flow action (control
structure) ? Don't you feel that this is the kind of "addition" that will
make the sitemap goes to direction you don't want ? I'm just proposing to
modify slighty the parameter tag no more (still compatible with current
behavior).

> handling a more diverse set of datatypes then strings. With what I
> propse your example would be:
> 
> sitemap.xmap
> -------------------
> <flow language="javascript">
>   <script src="myfunc.js"/>
> </map:flow>
> 
> <pipeline match="begin">
>  <call function="myfunc">
>  <generate type="jx" src="..."/>
>  ...
> </pipeline>
> 
> myfunc.js
> --------------
> function myfunc () {
>  pipeutil =
> 
cocoon.createObject(Packages.org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.util.PipelineUtil);
>  return { dom: pipeutil.processToDOM(/getuser) }
> }
>
> Where the pipeline util allready exists since a year or so.
>

You miss something much more important than factoring the above code into
one single function call, but i'm out of arguments and this thread is
already too deep :-(

> Thats what I'm going to focus on. I'm certain that there are good
> reasons for other solutions, but IMO we should focus on having one
> _excelent_ way of doing things rather than a couple of ok and

Not a couple only one that address several issues at the same time. Don't
care about cforms now. it works uglyly well ;-)

> independently developed, ways following different paradigms and focusing
> on different use cases and diffusing the development effort. But thats
> just me, do what you want.
>

I don't develop anything independently. I thought that you wanted to
refactor jxtg to make it more simpler more IoC and more SoC compliant.
That's why i change my mind on the service manager (thank to you :-).

But apparently i was wrong because you propose to add something that will
just add another layer of complexity through a new pluggable objects
architecture and a new expression syntax, without talking about any of the
issues i adressed in my previous messages.

But as you said you had some good reasons to do that.

At least i will be happy with your implementation, because it will permit us
to go to jx directly. But don't use the terms of IoC nor SoC nor MVC, there
are totaly inconsistent in the current implementation.

Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing your point of view with me.

Regards.

Eric


Mime
View raw message