Daniel Fagerstrom pisze:
> Ellis Pritchard skrev:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, looking at that thread makes the decision look at best arbitrary,
>> at worst spiteful for those who were doing something quite elegant
>> with the former behaviour!
>>
>> But it's actually not so bad for the 'facists' out there (see the
>> thread for why I use this term!!):
> During a period Cocoon grow explosively, so I think the community tried
> to keep some control over the basic contracts. The bad part was that the
> community during a period was a little bit to keen to forbid things. But
> that attitude disappeared after a while.
>
>> It is the CallFunctionNode which enforces the contract of redirection,
>> not any higher level flow construct; therefore we *could* leave that
>> contract alone, and instead implement this functionality (ironically)
>> with an Action, which then defines exactly the semantics as discussed
>> (or, if actions are really to be frowned upon, an entirely new type of
>> sitemap node).
> Actions would be OK, (so would IMO modifying the use of call as well,
> but that would require a new vote I guess).
>
>> So at the minimum we'd only need to:
>> a) change the Interpreter API to allow a function to return a value.
> I think that Interpreter is part of our "official" API, so we must
> consider back compatibility and our deprecation policy. Does changing
> the return value from void to Object create back incompatibility? If it
> does the simplest way is probably to add a new method that has a return
> value, and possibly deprecating the current one. Also one have to keep
> in mind that javaflow and apples depends on the flow API.
>
>> b) write an Action to allow calling the function and returning the
>> value to the nested sitemap.
>
> Sound good. Your suggestions would IMO be a great addition to Cocoon
> which would simplify usage and learning curve. Patches would be welcome ;)
+1 for all the above. Ellis, if you are going to implement what you proposed it would be helpful
to discuss returning and passing values
from flowscript. I do not know if you have been reading discussion about planned modifications
to Object Model handling. I suggest to read
that thread because my modifications are going to affect your work, see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.cocoon.devel/73700
--
Grzegorz Kossakowski
http://reflectingonthevicissitudes.wordpress.com/
|