cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <agalla...@agssa.net>
Subject Re: Sitemap: flow and interpreters
Date Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:15:57 GMT
On Sab, 11 de Junio de 2005, 21:05, Glen Ezkovich dijo:
>
> On Jun 11, 2005, at 7:53 PM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> On Sab, 11 de Junio de 2005, 10:34, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
>>
>>> Glen Ezkovich wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fix appears easy, but is something broken? Has someone expressed
>>>> the desire to use two languages in a single sitemap or is this just
>>>> an instance of feature creep?
>>>>
>>> I tend to agree, so I think we should for now just forbid to write
>>> different map:flow sections in a single sitemap (by different I mean
>>> that they use a different interpreter). If someone wants to use more
>>> than one language we can add that easily.
>>>
>>
>> This made me think about the future:
>>
>> 1-Exists or will exists the need to migrate JSflow to javaFlow (legal,
>> convenience, user desire or whatever)?
>
> Easing migration would be more of concern if my answer to #2 were
> yes. There are workarounds that I think would be more appropriate
> such as separate sitemaps for migrating to JavaFlow.

Well, there is a fact we need still need to solve around rhino. On the
other side, I hear there are some troubles using Bcel inside JVM-code for
java 1.5 (I never tried, perhaps it was only FUD).

>> 2-Should we want to encourage people to write Javaflow instead of
>> JSFlow?
>
> No. While I plan on using Javaflow going forward, JSFlow makes flow
> available to Javascript programers (web masters).
>
>> 3-Need to be a web glue for flow code too?
>
> Don't know yet. What is the use case?

We know JSFlow exists longer than JavaFlow. A usecase can be people
wanting to use already tested JSFlow while writting newer code using
JavaFlow.

> I just think its prudent to wait until there is a real need before we
> add a feature that may introduce complexities.

I agree. I just wanted to give some ideas of why this should be good. I
don't feel the need of support both flow scripts right now and dunno if in
the future I will need both on the same sitemap. Perhaps the answer is
never.

In anycase if this is too much complicated to implement or a waste of time
(including runtime), I believe we will find better way to migrate if
needed.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo


Mime
View raw message